No Bull From Factory Farming by Siu Sin Chang

NO BULL ORGANIZATION

P u b l i s h e d by No Bu l l Org an i zati o n 7 3 7 P o s t s t. Apt. 1 3 1 3 , CA 9 4 1 0 9 , S a n F r a n c isco, U.S.A.

PA GE

00 6

2011

00 | | C OPYRIGHT

Te l : + 1 4 1 5 6 7 6 0 3 3 3 E m a i l : l i z c h an g s i u s i n @ g m ai l .co m We b si t e : www.n o bu l l f ro m f acto ry.o rg

007 | PA G E 2011

All right reserved. This publication is protected by Copyright and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, o r t r a n sm i s s i o n i n a n y f o rm or by any means, electronic, mechan i c a l , p h o t o c o p y i n g, reco rdi n g , o r l i kewi s e. F o r i n f o r m a t i o n re g a rd i n g p e rmission(s), write to: Rights and Permissions Department.

C op y r ig h t ÂŠ L iz C han g 2 0 1 1

IS B N 11 : 6 3 5 - 5 - 9 2 0 - 3 7 3 24 -8 1098765 4 3 Designed by Liz Chang Ty p e s e t i n H e l v e t i c a N e u e, Lucida Sans Typewriter, E mperor E i g h t P rodu ct i o n a n d s e p a r a t i o n s by L iz C han g Tel: + 1 4 1 5 6 7 6 0 3 3 3 E mail: li z c h a n g si u s i n @ g m ai l .co m

SOURCE | www.nobullfromfactory.org

H er r ing & R o b i n so n B o o k Bi n der 100 N . H i l l D r. , U n i t 5 B r is b an e , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 0 0 5 Tel: + 1 4 1 5 4 6 8 0 4 4 0 F ax : + 1 4 1 5 4 6 8 0 6 5 3 E mail: h r b o o k b i n d e r s @ y a h o o .co m Web s ite : w w w. h e r r i n g a n dro bi n s o n bo o kbi n ders .co m

CONTENTS I N T R ODUCTION C H 0 0 P / / 0 1 8 AB STRACT OF N O BUL L ORGAN IZAT ION C H 0 0 P / / 0 2 0 O B JE CT IVE OF N O BUL L ORGAN IZAT ION

T H E TR UTH C H 1 . 1 P / / 0 2 4 THE CARBON FOOTPRIN T OF THE BEEF IN DUSTRY C H 1 . 2 P / / 0 3 2 B E E F CON SUMPT ION SURVEY

00 | | C ONTENTS

C H 1 . 3 P / / 0 3 6 D EFINITION P / / 0 3 6 FACTORY FARM P / / 0 3 8 GRAIN FED BEEF/ CONVENTIONAL P / / 0 3 8 NATURAL BEEF P / / 0 3 8 CERTIFIED ORGANIC BEEF P / / 0 4 0 GRASS FED BEEF P / / 0 4 0 ORGANIC GRASS FED BEEF

BEEF

PRODUCTION P RO CESS C H 2 . 1 P / / 0 4 4 THE LI FE CYCL E OF BEEF CATTL E IN FACTORY FARM C H 2 . 2 P / / 0 4 6 THE LI VIN G EN VIRON MEN T OF BEEF CATTL E IN FACTORY FA R M C H 2 . 3 P / / 0 5 0 THE CATTL E F EEDS IN FACTORY FARM

2011

T H E I MPACT C H 3 . 1 P / / 0 5 6 E NV I R ON MEN TAL ISSUES of beef PRODUCTION P / / 0 5 6 DEFORESTATION P / / 0 6 0 SOIL DEGRADATION P / / 0 6 6 WATER POLLUTION P / / 0 7 0 WATER WASTE P / / 0 7 4 FOOD WASTE P / / 0 7 8 ENERGY WASTE C H 3 . 2 P / / 0 8 2 HE ALTH ISSUES of beef PRODUCTION P / / 0 8 2 IMPACT ON LIVESTOCK HEALTH P / / 0 8 6 IMPACT ON HUMAN HEALTH

W HAT CAN WE DO TO HEL P C H 4 . 1 P / / 0 9 4 E ating L ess than half a pound of beef per wee k C H 4 . 2 P / / 0 9 8 eat grass fed beef C H 4 . 3 P / / 1 0 0 Try vegetarian diet

PA GE

00 8

C H 4 . 4 P / / 1 0 2 Spread the word

SOURCE | www.nobullfromfactory.org

2011

PA G E

009

PA GE

01 0

| 2011

00 | | I NTRODUCTION

SOURCE | www.nobullfromfactory.org

2011

PA G E

011

PA GE

01 2

| 2011

00 | | I NTRODUCTION

SOURCE | www.nobullfromfactory.org

2011

PA G E

013

PA GE

01 4

| 2011

00 | | I NTRODUCTION

SOURCE | www.nobullfromfactory.org

2011

PA G E

015

PA GE

01 6

| 2011

00 | INTRODUCTION

PA G E

017 ABOUT 1.3 POUNDS OF BEEF (EQUAL TO 5 PATTIES) CONSUMED PER PERSON PER WEEK IN THE U.S.

SOURCE | USDA | Factors Affecting U.S. Beef Consumption

2011

B e e f i s a h i g h l y c o n s u m e d s o u rc e o f p ro t e i n i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , a b o u t 7 0 p o u n d s p e r p e r s o n p e r y e a r. F o r m a n y y e a r s , b e e f re i g n e d a s A m e r i c a n s ’ n u m b e r o n e s o u rc e o f p ro t e i n . B e e f c o n s u m p t i o n c o n t i n u e s t o b e s t ro n g , a n d b e e f i s t h e m o s t p re f e r re d o f re d m e a t s .

PA GE

01 8

| 2011

00 | INTRODUCTION | ABSTRACT OF NO BULL ORGANIZATION

019 | PA G E 2011 | In the world, especially in western countries like America, p e o p l e a re w o r k i n g h a rd t o t r y t o s a v e o u r e n v i ro n m e n t . T h e re a re t o n s o f a d v e r t i s e m e n t s a b o u t l i v i n g g re e n , recycling and saving energy. We are all aware that our cars a n d o u r c o a l â&#x20AC;&#x201C; g e n e r a t e d e l e c t r i c p o w e r a d v e r s e l y a ff e c t the environment. But not many people know that our diets, e s p e c i a l l y b e e f , c a u s e m o re g re e n h o u s e g a s e s t h a n a l l o t h e r f o r m s o f g l o b a l t r a nsportation or industrial practices. I n t h e s a m e t i m e , w o r l d b e e f p ro d u c t i o n i s i n c re a s i n g a t a r a t e o f a b o u t 1 p e rc e n t a y e a r. B e e f h a s a l s o b e c o m e a s i g n i f i c a n t p ro t e i n s o u rc e s i n t h e U . S . d i e t w i t h n e a r l y 70 pounds of beef consumed per person each year in the U.S. It is about 1.3 pound per person per week.

SOURCE | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | Transportation Energy Data Book, U.S. Department of Energy, 2008

A B S T R A CT

PA GE

02 0

| 2011

00 | INTRODUCTION | OBJECTIVE OF NO BULL ORGANIZATION

021 | PA G E 2011 | â&#x20AC;&#x201D;A.M. Rosethal, American Journalist

N o B u l l w i l l re d u c e t h e d e s t r u c t i v e i m p a c t o f t h e b e e f ind u s tr y o n t h e g l o b a l e n vi ro n m en t by i n f o rm i n g th e pu bl i c o f t h e l i t t l e k n o w n t r u t h about consequences of current i n d u s t r y p r a c t i c e s a n d e s t a b l i s h i n g a p ro g r a m f o r s o c i a l a c t i o n a n d re f o r m . B e e f p ro d u c t i o n , w h i c h i s i n c re a s i n g y e a r l y, i s o n e o f t h e l e a d i n g c a u s e s o f g l o b a l w a r m i n g , d e f o re s t a t i o n a n d w a t e r p o l l u t i o n . S i n c e t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i s t h e l a r g e s t c o n s u m e r and producer of beef, it is crucial t h a t A m e r i c a n s a d j u s t t h eir dietary choices to be in accord w i t h s u s t a i n a b l e s y s t e m s o f e n e r g y p ro d u c t i o n a n d e n v i ro n m e n t a l c o n s e r v a t i o n .

SOURCE | www.nobullfromfactory.org

O BJ E C T IVE O F NO BU L L ORGA NIZATION

CH//1 T H E TR UTH C H 1 . 1 P / / 0 2 4 THE CARBON FOOTPRIN T OF RAISIN G COWS F OR FOO D C H 1 . 2 P / / 0 3 2 B E E F CON SUMPT ION SURVEY

PA GE

02 2

2011

01 | THE TRUTH

C H 1 . 3 P / / 0 3 6 DEFINITION P / / 0 3 6 FACTORY FARM P / / 0 3 8 GRAIN FED BEEF/ CONVENTIONAL P / / 0 3 8 NATURAL BEEF P / / 0 3 8 CERTIFIED ORGANIC BEEF P / / 0 4 0 GRASS FED BEEF P / / 0 4 0 ORGANIC GRASS FED BEEF

BEEF

SOURCE | www.nobullfromfactory.org

2011

PA G E

023

C H 1 . 1 THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF RAISING COWS FOR FOOD

PA GE

02 4

01 | THE TRUTH | 1.1 | THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF RAISING COWS FOR FOOD

MOST OF US ARE AWARE THAT OUR CARS, OUR COAL–GENERATED ELECTRIC POWER AND EVEN OUR CEMENT FACTORIES ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT. UNTIL RECENTLY, HOWEVER, THE FOODS WE EAT HAD GOTTEN A PASS IN THE DISCUSSION.

025 | PA G E

to beef. In 1999 Susan Subak, an ecological economist then at the University of East Anglia in England, found that, depending o n t h e p ro d u c t i o n m e t h o d , c o w s e m i t between 2.5 and 4.7 ounces of methane for e a c h p o u n d o f b e e f t h e y p ro d u c e . B e c a u s e m e t h a n e h a s ro u g h l y 2 3 t i m e s t h e g l o b a l w a r m i n g p o t e n t i a l o f C O₂, t h o s e e m i s s i o n s a re t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f re l e a s i n g b e t w e e n 3 . 6 a n d 6 . 8 p o u n d s o f C O₂ i n t o t h e a t m o s p h e re f o r e a c h p o u n d o f b e e f p ro d u c e d . R a i s i n g a n i m a l s a l s o re q u i re s a l a r g e a m o u n t o f f e e d per unit of body weight. In 2003 Lucas Reijnders of the University of Amsterdam and Sam Soret of Loma Linda University estimated that producing a pound of beef protein for the tabl e requ i re s more tha n 10 p ound s of p la nt protein with all the emissions of greenhouse g as es th at gra in fa rming e nta ils. Fina lly, fa rms f o r rai s i n g a nima ls p rod uc e nume rous wa ste s that give rise to greenhouse gases. Taking s u ch f acto rs into a c c ount, Sub a k c a lc ula te d that producing a pound of beef in a feedlot, or concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) system, generates the equivalent of 14.8 p o u n d s o f C O₂ p o u n d f o r p o u n d , m o re t h a n 3 6 t i m e s t h e C O₂— e q u i v a l e n t g re e n h o u s e g a s emitted by producing asparagus. Even other common meats cannot match the impact of b e e f ; S u b a k e s t i m a t e s t h a t p ro d u c i n g a pound of pork generates the equivalent of 3.8 po u n ds o f CO₂; a pound of chicken generates 1 . 1 p o u n d s o f C O₂— e q u i v a l e n t g re e n h o u s e g a s e s . A n d t h e e c o n o m i c a l l y e ff i c i e n t C A F O system, though certainly not the cleanest production method in terms of CO₂—equivalent greenhouse emissions, is far better than most: the FAO data that the world average emissions from producing a pound of beef are several times the CAFO amount.

SOURCE | SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN | U.N. report, Livestock’s Long Shadow, 2006

Ye t a c c o rd i n g t o a 2 0 0 6 re p o r t b y t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s F o o d a n d A g r i c u l t u re O r g a n i z a t i o n ( FA O ) , o u r d i e t s a n d , s p ecifically, the meat in t h e m c a u s e m o re g re e n h ouse gases carbon d iox ide ( C O₂) , m e t h a n e , nitrous oxide, and the l i k e t o s p e w i n t o t h e a t m osphere than either t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o r i n d u s t r y. (Greenhouse gases trap solar energy, thereby warming the earth’s s u r f a c e . B e c a u s e g a s e s v a r y i n g re e n h o u s e p o t e n c y, e v e r y g re e n h o u s e g a s i s u s u a l l y ex pres s e d a s a n a m o u n t o f CO₂ with the same g l o b a l w a r m i n g . T h e FA O re p o r t f o u n d t h a t c u r re n t p ro d u c t i o n l e v e l s o f m e a t c o n t r i b u t e b etw een 1 4 a n d 2 2 p e rc e n t o f th e 3 6 bi l l i o n t o n s o f “ C O ₂ — e q u i v a l e n t ” g re e n h o u s e g a s e s t h e w o r l d p ro d u c e s e v e r y y e a r. I t t u r n s o u t t h a t p ro d u c i n g h a l f a p o u n d o f h a m b u r g e r f o r s o m e o n e ’s l u n c h a p a tty of meat the size o f t w o d e c k s o f c a rd s re l e a s e s a s m u c h g re e n h o u s e g a s i n t o t h e a t m o s p h e re a s driving a 3,000 pounds car nearly 10 miles. In truth, every food we consume, vegetables and fruits included, incurs hidden e n v i ro n m e n t a l c o s t s : t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , re f r i g e r a t i o n a n d f u e l f o r f a r m i n g , a s w e l l a s m e t h a n e e m i s s i o n s f ro m plants and animals, all lead to a buildup of atmospheric greenhouse gas es . Ta k e a s p a r a g u s : i n a repo rt prepared for the city of Seattle, Daniel J. Morgan of the U n i v e r s i t y o f Wa s h i n g t o n a n d h i s c o – w o r k e r s f o u n d t h a t g ro w i n g j u s t h a l f a p o u n d o f t h e v e g e t a b l e i n P e r u e m i t s g re e n h o u s e g a s e s equivalent to 1.2 ounces of CO₂ as a result of a p p l y i n g i n s e c t i c i d e a n d f e r t i l i z e r, p u m p i n g w a t e r a n d r u n n i n g h e a v y, g a s – g u z z l i n g f a r m eq u ipme n t . To re f r i g e r a t e an d tran s po rt th e vegetable to an American dinner table generates another two ounces of CO₂—equivalent greenh o u s e g a s e s , f o r a t o tal CO₂— equivalent of 3.2 ounces. But that is nothing compared

01 | THE TRUTH | 1.1 | THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF RAISING COWS FOR FOOD

P ER C ENTAG E OF W ORLDW IDE GREENHOUSE GASE S E MI SS I ON

ENERGY PRODUCTION

FOSSIL–FUEL RETRIEVAL

2011

TRANSPORTATION

LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION

AGRICULTURE

PA GE

02 6

MANUFACTURING

WASTE DISPOSAL

RESIDENTIAL

LAND USE

027 | PA G E 2011 | T H E H IGH ( GR EEN HOUSE GAS) COST OF PRODUCING MEAT

Wo r l d w i d e m e a t p ro d u c t i on (beef, chicken and pork) emits more atmospheric greenhouse gases than do all forms of g l o b a l t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o r i ndustrial processes. On the basis o f d a t a f ro m t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s F o o d a n d A g r i c u l t u re O r g a n i z a t i o n ( FA O ) a n d t h e E m i s s i o n D a t a b a s e f o r G l o b a l A t m o s p h e r i c R e s e a rc h , t he author estimates that current levels of meat production add nearly 6.5 billion tons of CO₂ — equivalent greenhouse gases every year to the atmosphere: S o m e 1 8 p e rc e n t o f t h e w o r l d w i d e a n n u a l production of 36 billion tons. Only energy production generates more g re e n h o u s e g a s e s t h a n d o e s r a i s i n g l i v e s t o c k f o r f o o d .

SOURCE | SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN | U.N. report, Livestock’s Long Shadow, 2006

—Livestock's Long Shadow, U.N., 2006

CO₂ — E QUIVALENT EMISSIONS FROM PRODUCING HALF A POUND

POTATOES

0.17 MILES (0.13 pound of CO ₂— equivalent)

APPLES

0.20 MILES (0.15 pound of CO ₂— equivalent)

2011

01 | THE TRUTH | 1.1 | THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF RAISING COWS FOR FOOD

OF THIS FOOD COMPARE TO CO₂ — E MISSIONS FROM DRIVING

CHICKEN

0.73 MILES (0.55 pound of CO ₂— equivalent)

PORK

2.52 MILES (1.90 pound of CO ₂— equivalent)

BEEF

9.81 MILES (7.40 pound of CO ₂— equivalent)

PA GE

02 8

ASPARAGUS

0.27 MILES (0.20 pound of CO ₂— equivalent)

029 | PA G E 2011 |

The greenhouse gas emissions from producing various foods can be appreciated by comparing them with the emissions f ro m a g a s o l i n e – p o w e re d passenger car that gets 27 miles p e r g a l l o n . T h e e s t i m a t e d emissions from food production i n c o r p o r a t e t h e a s s u m p t i on that 1000 kilograms of carbon per hectare per year (about 2,700 pounds of carbon dioxide per acre per year) would have been absorbed by forests or other vegetation if the land had not been cleared for annual f o o d c ro p s o r f o d d e r. G re e n h o u s e g a s e s — c a r b o n d i o x i d e ( C O₂ ) a n d m e t h a n e , f o r i n s t a n c e — t r a p s o l a r e n e r g y a n d w a r m t h e e a r t h ' s s u r f a c e . Q u a n t i t i e s o f g re e n h o u s e g a s e s are ofte n e x p re ss e d a s t h e am o u n t o f CO₂ that would have t h e s a m e g l o b a l w a r m i n g p o t e n t i a l : T h e i r C O₂ e q u i v a l e n t .

SOURCE | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy

A N AT M O SP H ER I C COMPARISON

HOW BEEF PRODUCTION LEADS TO GREENHOUS E G ASE S

2011

01 | THE TRUTH | 1.1 | THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF RAISING COWS FOR FOOD

T h e l a r g e s t f r a c t i o n o f t h e g re e n h o u s e e ff e c t f ro m b e e f p ro d u c t i o n c o m e s f ro m t h e l o s s o f C O₂ a b s o r b i n g t re e s , g r a s s e s a nd other year—round plants where feed crops a re g ro w n an d h arves ted. T h e S eco n d l arg es t fra c tion is t h e m e t h a ne given off by animal waste and digestion.

GREENHOUSE GASES FROM CATTLE FARTS, BURPS AND THEIR WASTES

FERTILIZER PRODUCTION FOR CATTLE FEED

PA GE

03 0

GENERAL FARM PRODUCTION

DEFORESTATION FOR FARMS AND GROWING GRAIN FOR CATTLE FEED

031 | PA G E 2011 | SOURCE | SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN | U.N. report, Livestockâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Long Shadow, 2006

This analysis of the U.S. feedlot beef production system was done by ecological economist Susan Subak, then at the University of East Anglia in England.

C H 1 . 2 BEEF CONSUMPT ION SURVEY BEEF CONSUMPTION A ND EDUCATIONA L B ACKG R OUND

This survey taken by 85 people with mainly young a d u l t a n d go o d edu cati o n . T h e res u l t s h o ws t ha t most o f t h e p e o p l e d o n ’t k n o w b e e f p ro d u c t i o n i s b a d f o r t h e e n v i ro n m e n t . H o w e v e r, i f t h e y a re t o l d a b o u t t h e t r u t h o f p ro du ci n g beef to o u r en vi ro n m en t. Most of the p e o p l e a re wi l l i n g to eat l es s beef an d th ey are a lso i n t e re s t e d to know more information about t h e m a s s p ro d u c t i o n b e e f i n d u s t r y.

iiiiii i i

ii iiiiii

iiiiiiiii

53%

iiiiiii ii

01 | THE TRUTH | 1.2 | BEEF CONSUMPTION SURVEY

47%

Male

Female

2011

GENDER

>US $100k US $75k—100k

US $50k—74k

ii iiiiii

24%

US$ 21k—35k

03 2

SALARY

PA GE

47%

iiiiiii i

US$ 36k—49k

iiiiii i i

ii iiiiii

Less than US $20k

033 6% 1%

13%

iiiiiii ii 75%

20—29

AGE

PA G E

ii iiiiii

iiiiiiiii

2011

iiiiiiiii

iiiiiii ii

19%

iiiiiiii i

5% 1%

Some College or Associate Degree

iiiiiiiii

30—39

40—49

Less than a High school Diploma

High School Graduates, No College

80%

Bachelors degree or higher

EDUCATION

Once a week

Other

iiiiiii i 25%

HOW OFTEN DO YOU EAT BEEF?

Once a month

Twice a week

ii iiiiii 6%

16%

WHY DO YOU EAT BEEF?

78%

Tastes good

SOURCE | www.nobullfromfactory.org

15%

22%

More than twice a week

Rarely

iiiiiiiii

11%

iiiiiii i

18%

iiiii iii

ii iiiiii

Easy to prepare

iiiiii i i

Never

Have certain idea

iiiiiiiii

ii iiiiii

ii iiiii

iiiiiii ii

01 | THE TRUTH | 1.2 | BEEF CONSUMPTION SURVEY

16%

iiiiiii ii

Heard of it

iiiiiiiii

53%

30%

iiiiiiiii 6%

iiiiiiii i

18%

Heard of it

No idea

iiiiiiii

IF YOU ARE TOLD THAT GLOBAL POLLUTION FROM THE PRODUCTION OF LIVESTOCK IS EVEN WORSE THAN THE POLLUTION FROM THE GLOBAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, AND EATING A HAMBURGER IS EQUAL TO DRIVING A CAR FOR 10 MILES, HOW CONCERNED WOULD YOU BE TOWARDS EATING LESS BEEF?

ii iiiiii

Things you can do to help

18%

iiiiiiii

| 03 4 | PA GE

27%

iiiiiii i 60%

Concern

iiiiiiiii

Where can you find grass fed beef

Highly concern

29%

21%

Difference between grass fed beef and grain fed beef

iiiiiiii i

ii iiiiii

How damaging beef production is for the environment

iiiiii i i

Don’t care Rarely concern

No idea

DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE OF GRASS FED BEEF AND GRAIN FED BEEF?

2011

DO YOU KNOW BEEF PRODUCTION IS BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT?

78%

13%

19%

WHAT KIND OF INFORMATION WOULD YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT RELATES TO EATING BEEF?

Beef production process

035 | PA G E Highly concern

2011

iiiiiiiii

Concern

iiiiiii i

iiiiiiii

Don't care

38%

21%

iiiiiii ii 32%

Rarely concern

HOW CONCERNED ARE YOU IF THE BEEF YOU EAT IS GRASS FED BEEF OR GRAIN FED/ CORN FED BEEF?

Get involved with the campaign about eating less beef and volunteered to the activities

Don’t care

ii iiiiii

iiiiiii i

Donations

iiiiiiiii

ii iiiiii

26%

Start with yourself by eating less beef

59%

WHAT WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO HELPING WITH?

SOURCE | www.nobullfromfactory.org

Spread the word

PA GE

03 6

| 2011

01 | THE TRUTH | 1.3 | DEFINITION

C H 1 . 3 D EF INIT ION — FACT ORY FAR M

037 | PA G E 2011

a “large” C AFO (2) by meeting the definitional re q u i re m e n t s f o r a “ m e d i u m ” C A F O a n d ( 3 ) t h ro u g h s p e c i a l d e s i g n a t i o n b y t h e re l e v a n t E PA R e g i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t o r o r S t a t e D i re c t o r upon determining “that it is a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States.” The definitional requirements of both large and medium CAFOs include minimum numbers of confined animals. A partial list of these numbers appears in the Table. To qualify as a medium CAFO, a facility must also discharge pollutants into U.S. waters “through vvva m a n – m a d e d i t c h , f l u s h i n g s y s t e m , o r o t h e r s i m i l a r m a n - m a d e d e v i c e ” o r d i re c t l y into U.S. waters “which originate outside of a n d pass over, across, or through the facility or o t h e r w i s e c o m e i n t o d i re c t c o n t a c t w i t h the animals confined in the operation.”

The terms “factory farm,” “concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO),” and “animal feeding operation (AFO)” are often used interchangeably, “ f a c t o r y f a r m ” i s a g e n e r a l t e r m t h a t re f e r s t o i n d u s t r i a l a n i m a l p ro d u c t ion facilities, while “AFO” and “CAFO” have precise definitions. An A F O i s a f a c i l i t y i n w h i c h crops and vegetation are not su s t a i n e d d u r i n g th e n o rm al g ro wi n g s e a s o n , a n d l a n d a n i m a l s a re c o n f i n e d f o r 4 5 d a y s o r m o re w i t h i n a 1 2 to month period. As described by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “AFOs congregate animals, feed, manure and urine, dead animals, and production operations on a small land area.” The EPA estimates that there are approximately 450,000 AFOs in the United States. An AFO may be d e s i g n a t e d a s a C A F O i n one of three ways: (1) By meeting the definitional requirements for

A nimal S ector

Large CAFOs

Medium CA FOs

S M A LL C A FOs

C attle o r c o w / c a l f p a i r s M ature d a i r y c a t t l e Veal calv e s

1 ,0 0 0 o r m o re 7 0 0 o r m o re 1 ,0 0 0 o r m o re

300 – 9 99 300 – 9 99 300 – 9 99

Le ss tha n 300 Le ss tha n 200 Le ss tha n 300

SOURCE | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | The Humane Society of the United States

R E GU L AT ORY DEF I N I T I O N S OF LA RGE CAFOS, MEDIUM CA FO, AND SMAL L CAF OS

C H 1 . 3 DEFINITION — GRAIN FED BEEF, N ATU RAL BEEF AND CERT IF IED OR GANIC B EEF

01 | THE TRUTH | 1.3 | DEFINITION

Beef producers in the us have increasingly marketed a wide variety of beef products, giving consumers the opportunity o f s e l e c t i ng f ro m s everal ki n ds o f beef pro du c ts. Howe ve r, t h e re a re e s s en ti al l y f i ve types of beef marketed by us beef p ro d u c e r s: co n ven ti o n al , n atu ral , certi f i ed o rga nic , gra ss f e d b e e f , organic grass fed beef. Customers are usually confused about the meaning of the labels in the market.

THIS MARK IS ON ALL FEDERALLY INSPECTED PRE—PACKAGED PROCESSED MEAT PRODUCTS FROM VACUUM—PACKED BEEF BRISKET TO FRANKFURTERS.

PRIME GRADE IS PRODUCED FROM YOUNG, WELL—FED BEEF CATTLE. IT HAS ABUNDANT MARBLING AND IS GENERALLY SOLD IN RESTAURANTS AND HOTEL.

CHOICE GRADE IS HIGH QUALITY, BUT HAS LESS MARBLING THAN PRIME.

PA GE

03 8

2011

THIS IS THE OFFICIAL USDA MARK FOR APPROVED MEAT CARCASSES.

SELECT GRADE IS VERY UNIFORM IN QUALITY AND NORMALLY LEANER THAN THE HIGHER GRADES.

T h e o ff i c i a l U S D A d e f i n i t i on of natural refers to b e e f t h a t h a s b e e n m i n i mally processed and contains no additives, which means no artificial f l a v o r s , c o l o r s o r p re s e r v atives. This definition a p p l i e s t o a l l m e a t t h a t d oes not have an ingredient label (a label is added if the product includ es a m a r i n a d e o r s o l u ti o n ). T h en , i f th ere is n o ing re d i e n t l a b e l i t c a n be as s u m ed as n a t u r a l . T h e U S D A d e f i n i tion doesn’t mention the growi n g t e c h n i q u e s f or th e n atu ral beef p ro d u c t i o n a n d t h i s c a n b e m i s l e a d i n g f o r consumers. S o m e p roducers are aware of this and try to explain to consumers the problem that comes from the lack of an official definition o n t h e g ro w i n g s i d e f o r t h e n a t u r a l b e e f . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e D a k o t a B e e f C o m p a n y s t re s s e s t h e i d e a o f “ n o re s t r i c t i o n s " f o r n a t u r a l b e e f p ro d u c t i o n o n f e e d , v e t e rinary care, or growth s t i m u l a n t s . I f a n a t u r a l p ro d u c e r d e c i d e s t o p ro m o t e t h e f a c t t h a t h i s o r h e r c a t t l e w e re r a i s e d w i t h o u t a n t i b i o t i c s or growth hormones, a n a d d i t i o n a l l a b e l i s a d d ed to the package. For the Maverik Ranch, "the natural beef d e f i n i t i o n a l l o w s a l m o s t a n y p u re p ro t e i n t o b e label e d a s ‘ n a t u r a l ' . W h i l e i t precl u des th e a d d i t i o n o f c h e m i c a l s o r additives after the an im al h a s b e e n h a r v e st e d, i t do es n o t m ake

CERTIFIED OR G ANI C B E E F

2011

PA G E

039 N AT U R AL BEEF

reference to raising practices during the life of th e an i m al , suc h a s wha t the a nima l wa s fe d or whether antibiotics or pesticides were ever administered.” In general, and through the efforts of ranchers and natural beef marketers, natural beef has come to be defined as raised w i t h o u t a n t i b i o t i c s o r g ro w t h h o r m o n e s an d i o n o phore s a nd imp la nts a re not use d in t h e p ro d u c t i o n p ro c e s s .

C o n v e n t i o n a l b e e f c o m e s from cattle raised in pastures for the majority of their lives, typically 12 months, and then fed a grain based diet for 1 2 0 t o 2 0 0 d a y s p r i o r t o harvest. Or they may f e d d i re c t l y o n a g r a i n b a sed diet at 6 to 8 m o n t h s o l d . T h e g r a i n b a sed “finishing period” i s m e a n t t o i n c re a s e t h e marbling, tender ness a n d c o n s i s t e n c y o f t h e f i n a l b e e f p ro d u c t . P ro d u c e r s a re a l l o w e d t o u s e a w i d e v a r i e t y o f t e c h n o l o g i e s i n c l u d i n g f e r t i l i z i n g p a s t u re s a n d g r a i n s w i t h c o m m e rc i a l f e r t i l i z e r s a n d use man–made herbicides and parasite control. A l s o a n i m a l s m a y b e t re a ted or fed growth p ro m o t a n t s a n d s u b t h e r a p e u t i c a n t i b i o t i c s .

Certified organic beef must meet USDA National Organic Program standards. W ith the O r g a n i c F o o d s P ro d u c t i o n A c t , e ff e c t i v e O c t o b e r 2 0 0 2 , U S D A s t a n d a rd s w e re s e t f o r all food labeled organic. For beef, this m ean s : Orga nic me a t c ome s from a nima ls tha t a re g i v e n n o a n t i b i o t i c s o r g ro w t h h o r m o n e s . H o w e v e r, i f a n a n i m a l i s s i c k , t h e a n i m a l c a n n o t b e d e n i e d t re a t m e n t t o e n s u re i t s h e a l t h ; a n y a n i m a l t h a t i s t re a t e d w i t h a n t i b i o t i c s i s t a k e n o u t o f t h e N a t i o n a l O r g a n i c P ro g r a m . Org an i c f o od is p rod uc e d without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made w i t h s y n t h e t i c i n g re d i e n t s o r s e w a g e s l u d g e ; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Cattle m u s t b e f e d 1 0 0 p e rc e n t o r g a n i c f e e d , b u t m a y b e p ro v i d e d c e r t a i n v i t a m i n a n d m i n e r a l s u p p l e m e n t s . O r g a n i c f o o d i s p ro d u c e d b y f a r m e r s w h o e m p h a s i z e t h e u s e o f re n e w a b l e re s o u rc e s a n d t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n o f s o i l a n d w a t e r t o e n h a n c e e n v i ro n m e n t a l q u a l i t y f o r f u t u re g e n e r a t i o n s . C a t t l e t h a t m e e t t h e national organic standard require ruminants to have access to pasture. Before a product can be l abel ed “ orga nic ,” a Gove r nme nt a p p rove d c e r t i f i e r i n s p e c t s t h e f a r m w h e re t h e f o o d i s g ro w n t o m a k e s u re t h e f a r m e r i s f o l l o w i n g a l l the rules necessary to meet USDA organic s tan dards . Comp a nie s tha t ha nd le or p roc e ss o r g a n i c f o o d b e f o re i t g e t s t o y o u r l o c a l s u p e r m a r k e t o r re s t a u r a n t m u s t b e c e r t i f i e d , t o o . O r g a n i c b e e f m u s t b e c e r t i f i e d t h ro u g h U S D A’s A g r i c u l t u r a l M a r k e t i n g S e r v i c e ( A M S ) .

SOURCE | USDA | The National Cattlemen's Beef Association

GR A IN FED BEEF / CONVENTIONAL B EEF/

C H 1 . 3 DEFINITION — GRASS FED BEEF

PA GE

04 0

2011

01 | THE TRUTH | 1.3 | DEFINITION

AN D ORGANIC GR ASS F ED BEEF

041 | PA G E 2011

beef. Some producers claim that “Grass fed animal products have been shown to be higher in beta carotene (Vitamin A), conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), and Omega—3 fatty acids, w h i c h s o m e p ro d u c e r s c l a i m a re i m p o r t a n t i n re d u c i n g c h o l e s t e ro l , d i a b e t e s , c a n c e r, high blood pressure and other life threatening d i s e a s e s . T h e s e p ro d u c t s a re l o w e r i n f a t , c h o l e s t e ro l a n d c a l o r i e s . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e r i s k of infection by E. Coli in these products is virtually eliminated”. A disadvantage for g r a s s f e d m e a t p ro d u c e r s i s t h a t a n i m a l s raised entirely on grass mature more slowly, l e n g t h e n i n g t h e p ro d u c t i o n t i m e o f g r a s s f e d p ro d u c t s , a n d t h e c a rc a s s w e i g h t i s o f t e n less at slaughter. Grass fed cattle can be r a i s e d o r g a n i c a l l y o r n a t u r a l l y. C o n s u m e r s can recognize organic products by looking for the “USDA Certified Organic” label.

The American Grass fed Association, definition for the grass fed cattle: a) Animals having been, f ro m b i r t h t o h a r v e s t , f e d on grass, legumes a n d f o r a g e s a n d , b ) A n i mals having not been: c re e p f e d a s c a l v e s , f e d f o r e x t e n d e d p e r i o d s i n c o n f i n e m e n t , o r f i n i s h ed on grains (as grain f e e d i n g i s w h a t d e s t ro y s the nutritional b e n e f i t s o f g r a s s f e d p ro ducts). Similarly, t h e N a t i o n a l C a t t l e m e n ’s Beef Association has defined Grass finished beef as that produced from cat t l e t h a t g r a z e d i n pas tu res th ei r en ti re lives. As a result of the forage based diet grass fin is h ed a n i m a l s re c e i v e th ro u g h o u t th ei r l i ves , g r a s s f i n i s h e d b e e f t e n d s to grade “Select”, which means it has minimal intramuscular fat or m a r bl i n g , s o i t i s t y p i c ally a leaner product. However, conventional beef graded “Select” has the same level of leanness as grass finished

SOURCE | USDA | The National Cattlemen's Beef Association

GRASS FED BEEF AND ORGANIC GRASS FED BEEF

CH// 2 PRODUCTION P RO CESS C H 2 . 1 P / / 0 4 4 THE LI FE CYCL E OF BEEF CATTL E IN FACTORY FARM C H 2 . 2 P / / 0 4 6 THE LI VIN G EN VIRON MEN T OF BEEF CATTL E IN FACTORY FA R M

PA GE

04 2

2011

02 | PRODUCTION PROCESS

C H 2 . 3 P / / 0 5 0 THE CATTL E F EEDS IN FACTORY FARM

SOURCE | www.nobullfromfactory.org

2011

PA G E

043

C H 2 . 1 T HE LIF E CYCLE OF BEEF CAT T LE IN FA C TO RY FA RM

PA GE

04 4

2011

02 | PRODUCTION PROCESS | 2.1 | THE LIFE CYCLE OF BEEF CATTLE IN FACTORY FARM

The beef industry encompasses all segments from conception o f t h e a n i mal to the delivery of food to the consumer's t a b l e . T h e c o w â&#x20AC;&#x201C; c a l f p ro d u c t i o n s e c t o r i n v o l v e s b re e d i n g o f c o w s w ith bu l l s o r arti f i ci al i n s em i n ati o n , c onc e p tion, g e s t a t i o n , birth of the calf and lactation periods until w e a n i n g o f t h e c a l f f ro m t h e c o w. T h e c a l f i s w e a n e d a t a p p ro xi m a tel y 5 0 0 to 6 0 0 po u n ds . L i ve wei g ht or a b out 6 to 8 months of age. From this age, the calves are usually f e d o n g r a ssland until they weigh approximately 750 p o u n d s t o 800 pounds. Live weight when they are called s t o c k e r c a ttl e. Sto cker cal ves are pl aced i n a c onfine me nt f e e d l o t f o r appro x i m atel y 1 2 0 to 2 0 0 days u n t il the y re a c h a l i v e w e i ght of 1100 to 1300 pounds. On some farms, d e p e n d i n g on the availability of feed, weaned calves may b e p l a c e d directly into a confinement feedlot for growing a n d f i n i s h i n g , s ki ppi n g th e g ras s l an d ph as e.

045 | PA G E 2011 | BIRTH OF CALF (70—100 lbs)

TRANSPORTED TO A SLAUGHTERHOUSE (1300 lbs)

WEANED AT 6–8 MONTHS (500–600 lbs) OR PLACED DIRECTLY INTO A CONFINEMENT FEEDLOT

PLACED IN CONFINEMENT FEEDLOT FOR 3–6 MONTHS (750–800 lbs)

SOURCE | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

PASTURE FOR 3–6 MONTHS (500–600 lbs)

FATTENED UP UNTIL 14–16 MONTHS OLD (1300 LBS)

PA GE

04 6

| 2011

02 | PRODUCTION PROCESS | 2.2 | THE LIVING ENVIRONMENT OF BEEF CATTLE IN FACTORY FARM

C H 2 . 2 THE LIVING ENVIRONMENT OF

BE E F C ATTLE IN FACT ORY FAR M

THE BIRD VIEW OF A FEEDLOT

047 | PA G E 2011 |

T h e f e e d l o t , d e v e l o p e d p ost World War II in the United S t a t e s d u e t o t h e r i s e o f fast food operations, enables the c a t t l e t o g a i n w e i g h t f a s t e r t h ro u g h g r a i n f e e d i n g a n d p ro t e i n s u p p l e m e n t s , i n o rd e r t h a t t h e c a t t l e m a y re a c h m a t u re s l a u g h t e r w e i g h t a t a m u c h f a s t e r r a t e t h a n t r a d i t i o n a l g r a z i n g m e t h o ds, while taking up less area than required in traditional grazing methods. The feedlot system, h o w e v e r, d i s p l a c e s c a t t l e f ro m a s p e c i e s â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a p p ro p r i a t e environment into a confined area where feeding takes place t h ro u g h m e c h a n i z e d t ro u g h â&#x20AC;&#x201C; l i k e s y s t e m s . T h e f e e d l o t a l s o re l i e s o n a g r a i n f e d m e t h o d t o f a t t e n t h e c a t t l e , d i s re g a rd i n g t h e c a t t l e ' s ruminant nature. While feedlot s y s t e m s p ro v i d e i n e x p e n s i v e a n d re a d i l y a v a i l a b l e m e a t s to supply the world's high beef demand, grass fed beef b e c o m e s a m o re s u s t a i n a b l e s y s t e m f o r t h e e n v i ro n m e n t . T h e f e e d l o t s y s t e m a l l o w s all of the beef supplied from a f e e d l o t t o b e c o m e h o m o g e n i z e d d u e t o t h e s i m i l a r n a t u re o f t h e g r a i n s t h a t t h e c a t t l e a re f e d , i n s t e a d o f a l l o w i n g t h e c a t t l e t o re t a i n t h e f l a v o r s o f t h e v e r n a c u l a r g r a s s species found in the cattle's original location, as is the case with traditional farming methods given by grass fed cattle. A n d t h e re f o re , The United States is the largest producer of beef products in the world, although it ranks fourth in total number of beef animals. This high production r a t e i s m a d e p o s s i b l e b y the high efficiency of U.S. p rodu ce r s. T h e U n i t e d S tates i s th e th i rd l arg es t ex po rter of beef in the world. It is also the largest importer of beef, particularly of ground beef in frozen form. Despite a recent d rop in a n n u a l b e e f c o n s u m pti o n , U .S . per capi ta beef c o n s u m p t i o n r a n k s t h i rd i n t h e w o r l d . In the first four m o n t h s o f 2 0 1 0 , t h e U . S . e x p o r t e d 1 1 p e rc e n t o f i t s b e e f p ro d u c t i o n . S h i p m e n t s w e re v a l u e d a t 3 b i l l i o n 80 million d o l l a r s l a s t y e a r. U . S . b e ef exports may jump 20 percent t o 3 b i l l i o n 7 0 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s t h i s y e a r. T h e v o l u m e o f U . S . b e e f e x p o r t s m a y i n c re a s e b y 1 2 p e rc e n t t o 1 m i l l i o n metric tons (2 billion 200 million pounds).

SOURCE | meattradenewsdaily | The Canadian Wheat Board(CWB) 2009 International Livestock Congress | wikipedia

A F E E D L O T O R F E E DYA R D I S A T Y P E O F A N I M A L FEEDING O P E R AT I O N ( A F O ) W H I C H I S U S E D I N FAC TO RY FARMING F O R F I N I S H I N G L I V E S TO C K , N O TA B LY B E E F CATTL E, PRI O R TO S L AU G H T E R . LA R G E B E E F F E E D LO T S A R E CA L L E D C O N C E N T R AT E D A N I M A L F E E D I N G OPERAT I O N S ( CA F O S ) . T H E Y M AY C O N TA I N T H O U S A N D S OF AN IM AL S I N AN ARRAY O F P E N S.

02 | PRODUCTION PROCESS | 2.2 | THE LIVING ENVIRONMENT OF BEEF CATTLE IN FACTORY FARM

SOUTH DAKOTA

IDAHO 13

NEBRASKA 27 28

3 4 2

COLORADO 15

CALIFORNIA

KANSAS

6 7 16 17

12 20 8 21 9 10 11

18 19

OKLAHOMA

22 23 24

2011

TEXAS

PA GE

04 8

T H E BI GGEST FEEDLOTS

T h e c u r re n t f e e d l o t m a r k e t i s c o n t ro l l e d b y f o u r m a i n corporations, including Cactus Feeders and ConAgra. Most o f t h e f e e d l o t s i n t h e U S A a re s i t u a t e d i n C a l i f o r n i a , Colorado, Texas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Idaho, and S o u t h D e kota. These feedlots can have more then 100,000 cows in it. For example the one in Grand View in Idaho w h i c h s p a ns 750 acres. It is t h e l a r g e s t h o l d i n g c a p a b i l i t y i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , w i t h a o n e- t i m e cap aci t y of 150,000 h e a d . I t i s t h e b i g g e s t i n t h e U S A a n d t h e re f o re a l s o i n t h e world. Because there is no country in the world which uses this kind of huge feedlots. Another huge one is situated in California near Coalinga. This is supposed to be the second b i g g e s t f e e d l o t i n t h e U S A . A t o v e r 8 0 0 a c re s and w i t h a p o p u l a t i o n o f o v e r o n e h u n d re d t h o u s a n d c a t t l e .

049 | 3

Kuner Feedlot (JBS) Capacity: 90,000 head

Gilcrest Feedlot (JBS) Capacity: 90,000

Yuma Feedlot (JBS) Capacity: 125,000 head

Colorado Beef (JBS) Capacity: 59,000 head

Grant County Feeders (JBS) Capacity: 112,000 head

Cimarron Feeders (JBS) Capacity: 66,000 head

Coronado Feeders (JBS) Capacity: 69,000 head

XIT Feeders (JBS) Capacity: 75,000

Hartkey Feeders (JBS) Capacity: 73,000 head

NAPI Feeders (JBS) Capacity: 10,000 head

Interstate Feeders (JBS) Capacity: 52,000 head

Calf Source (JBS) Capacity: 8,500 head

Syracuse Feedyard (Cactus)

Ulysses Feedyard (Cactus)

Centerfire Feedyard (Catus)

Frontier Feedyard (Cactus)

Wolf Creek Feedyard (Cactus)

Stratford Feedyard (Cactus)

Cactus Feedyard (Cactus)

Southwest Feedyard (Cactus)

Wrangler Feedyard (Cactus)

Hale Center Feedyard (Cactus)

Haverhals Feedlot Capacity: 4500 head

Holland Feedlot

Hi-Gain Feed Lot

Darr Feed Lot Inc Capacity: 40,000 head

JBS=JBS Five Rivers Cattle Feeding LLC (Financed by ConAgra)

PA G E

Harris Feeding Company Capacity: 100,000 head

2011

Simplot Cattle Feeding Capacity: 150,000 head

SOURCE | MANUFACTURED LANDSCAPES | CACTUSFEEDERS | FIVE RIVERSâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; FEEDYARD

PA GE

05 0

| 2011

02 | PRODUCTION PROCESS | 2.3 | CATTLE FEEDS IN FACTORY FARM

C H 2 . 3 CAT T LE F EED S IN FACT ORY FAR M

051 | PA G E 2011 |

world. In 2004, over 120 million tons of primary animal feed, including mixes of feed grains, m i l l b y – p ro d u c t s , a n i m a l p ro t e i n s , a n d m i c ro ingredient formulations (i.e., vitamins, minerals, and antibiotics) were produced in the United States). In the same year, the United States exported nearly 4 billion dollars worth of animal f e e d i n g re d i e n t s . T h e s t r u c t u re o f t h e U.S. animal feed industry is complex, with a multitude of industries and individual producers contributing t o t h e p ro d u c t i o n , m i x i n g , a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n o f f e e d i n g re d i e n t s a n d c o m p l e t e f e e d p ro d u c t s . H o w e v e r, t h e re a re a f e w f i r m s t h a t p l a y p r i n c i p a l ro l e s i n t h e m a n u f a c t u re o f U . S . f e e d s , i n c l u d i n g f e e d m i l l s , re n d e r i n g p l a n t s , a n d p ro t e i n b l e n d e r s . F e e d m i l l s combine plant–based and animal–based feed i n g re d i e n t s t o p ro d u c e m i x e s d e s i g n e d f o r specific animal specie. Rendering plants t r a n s f o r m s l a u g h t e r b y – p ro d u c t s a n d a n i m a l s that are unsuitable for human consumption into animal feed products using grinding, cooking, a n d p re s s i n g p ro c e s s e s . P ro t e i n b l e n d e r s mix proces sed plant–based and animal–based p ro t e i n i n g re d i e n t s f ro m m a n y s o u rc e s i n t o animal feeds. Once animal feed ingredients are mixed, an estimated 17,500 U.S. animal feed d e a l e r s d i s t r i b u t e t h e f i n a l feed products to i n di vi du al f e e d ing op e ra tions.

SOURCE | Environmental Health Perspectives

I n t h e e a r l y 1 9 0 0 s , a n i m als produced for food in the United States were raised on small family f a r m s w h e re c o w s p re d o m i n a n t l y g r a z e d o n p a s t u re . H o w e v e r, i n t h e past 60 years, farms and animal feed formulations have undergone significant changes. Small family–owned and f a m i l y – o p e r a t e d f a r m s h a v e b e e n re p l a c e d a l m o s t e n t i re l y b y a s y s t e m o f l a r g e – s c a l e o p e r a t i o n s w h e re i n d i v i d u a l f a r m e r s c o n t r a c t with vertically integrated corporations. High r a t e s o f f o o d p ro d u c t i o n h a v e b e e n a c h i e v e d t h ro u g h t h e s e s y s t e m s i n w h i c h t h e s c a l e o f o p e r a t i o n s re q u i re s t h e h i g h t h ro u g h p u t g e n e r a t i o n o f a n i m a l s f o r p ro c e s s i n g . A n i m a l s are raised in confinement and fed defined feeds that are formulated to increase growth rates and feed conversion efficiencies. T h e s e p re s e n t d a y a n i m a l f e e d s c o n t a i n m i x t u re s o f p l a n t – b a s e d p ro d u c t s , a s w e l l a s o t h e r i n g re d i e n t s r a n g i n g f ro m re n d e re d a n i m a l s a n d a n i m a l w a s t e to antibiotics and organoarsenicals. The inclusion of these i n g re d i e n t s i n a n i m a l f e e d s c a n re s u l t i n t h e p re s e n c e o f a r a n g e o f biological, chemical, and other etiologic agents in feed that can a ff e c t t h e q u a l i t y a n d s a f ety of animal– based f o o d p ro d u c t s a n d p o s e potential risks to human health. The U.S. animal feed industry i s t h e l a r g e s t p ro d u c e r o f animal feed in the

PA GE

05 2

| 2011

窶認lorida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

02 | PRODUCTION PROCESS | 2.3 | CATTLE FEEDS IN FACTORY FARM

053 | PA G E CORN

FEATHER MEAL

DRIED CHEESE

DRIED COW MILK

RESTAURANT FOOD WASTE

ANTIBIOTICS

SWINE MEAL

CATTLE MEAL

POULTRY MEAL

FISH MEAL

BONE MEAL

ANIMAL—WASTE

EGG—SHELL MEAL

2011

BARLEY

A NI M A L F E E D I NG R E D I E NTS THAT ARE L EGAL LY USED IN U.S. AN IMAL F EEDS

Origin, raw material

Examples

Forage

Alfalfa meal and hay, Bermuda coastal grass hay, corn plant and soybean hay

Grains

Barley, corn (organic and genetically modified), oats, rice, sorghum, and wheat

Plant protein products

Canola meal, cottonseed cakes and meals, peanut meal, safflower meal, and soybean (organic and genetically modified) feed and meal

Processed grain by—products

Distillers products, brewers dried grains, corn gluten, sorghum germ cake and meal, peanut skins, and wheat bran

Fruit and fruit by—products

Dried citrus pulp, apple pomace, and pectin pulp

Molasses

Beet, citrus, starch, and cane molasses

Miscellaneous

Almond hulls and ground shells, buckwheat hulls, legumes and their by—products, and other crop by—products

Animal Rendered animal protein

Meat meal, meat meal tankage, meat and bone meal, poultry meal, animal by—product meal,

from the slaughter of food

dried animal blood, blood meal, feather meal, egg—shell meal, hydrolyzed whole poultry

production animals and

hydrolyzed hair, bone marrow, and animal digest from dead, dying, diseased, or disabled

other animals

animals including deer and elk

Animal waste

Dried ruminant waste, dried swine waste, dried poultry litter, and undried processed animal waste products

Marine by—products

Fish meal, fish residue meal, crab meal, shrimp meal, fish oil, fish liver and glandular meal, and fish by—products

Dairy products

Dried cow milk, casein, whey products, and dried cheese

Mixed Fats and oils

Animal fat, vegetable fat or oil, and hydrolyzed fats

Restaurant food waste

Edible food waste from restaurants, bakeries, and cafeterias

Contaminated/

Food adulterated with rodent, roach, or bird excreta that has been heat treated to destroy

adulterated food

pathogenic organisms

Other Antibiotics

Tetracyclines, macrolides, fluoroquinolones, and streptogramins

By—products of drug

Spent mycelium and fermentation products

manufacture Arsenicals

Roxarsone and arsanilic acid

Other metal compounds

Copper compounds and metal amino acid complexes

Nonprotein nitrogen

Urea, ammonium chloride, and ammonium sulfate

Minerals

Bone charcoal, calcium carbonate, chalk rock, iron salts, magnesium salts, and oyster shell flour

Vitamins

Vitamins A, D, B12, E, niacin, and betaine

Direct—fed organisms

Aspergillis niger, Bacillus subtilis, Bifidobacterium animalis, Enterococcus faecium, and yeast

Flavors

Aloe vera gel concentrate, ginger, capsicum, and fennel

Enzymes

Phytase, cellulase, lactase, lipase, pepsin, and catalase

Additives generally regarded

Acetic acid, sulfuric acid, aluminum salts, dextrans, glycerin, beeswax, sorbitol,

as safe (GRAS)

and riboflavin

Preservatives

Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and sodium bisulfite

Nutraceuticals

Herbal and botanical products

Plastics

Polyethylene roughage replacement

Data adapted from Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO)

SOURCE | Environmental Health Perspectives | Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services | Association Of American Feed Control Officials

Plant

CH//3 T H E I MPACT C H 3 . 1 P / / 0 5 6 E NV I R ON MEN TAL ISSUES of beef PRODUCTION P / / 0 5 6 DEFORESTATION P / / 0 6 0 SOIL DEGRADATION P / / 0 6 6 WATER POLLUTION P / / 0 7 0 WATER WASTE P / / 0 7 4 FOOD WASTE P / / 0 7 8 ENERGY WASTE

PA GE

05 4

2011

03 | | T HE IMPACT

C H 3 . 2 P / / 0 8 2 H E ALTH ISSUES of beef PRODUCTION P / / 0 8 2 IMPACT ON LIVESTOCK HEALTH P / / 0 8 6 IMPACT ON HUMAN HEALTH

SOURCE | www.nobullfromfactory.org

2011

PA G E

055

C H 3 . 1 ENVIR ONMENTAL ISSUES— D EF OR ESTATI O N WH AT R EMAINS OF THE WORLD'S VIRGIN FORES T S SI NCE 1950

03 | | T HE IMPACT | 3.1 | ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF BEEF PRODUCTION

CURRENT FOREST COVER ORIGINAL FOREST COVER

2%—3% LOGGING

1%—2% OTHERS

5%—10%

2011

LARGE–SCALE AGRICULTURE

65% —70% CATTLE RANCHING

20%—25% SMALL–SCALE AGRICULTURE

PA GE

05 6

CAUSES OF DEFORESTATION IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON, 2000—2005

Others: Include fires, mining, urbanization, road construction, dams

BRAZIL AMAZON RAINFOREST

057 | PA G E 2011 |

been tur ned over to grazing. Between 2000 and 2007, the Brazilian Amazon was deforested at an averag e ra te of 19,368 km p e r ye a r. Ove r this time, 154,312 km of forest, an area larger than Greec e, was d e s t ro y e d . C a t t l e r a n c h i n g w h i c h h a s b e e n e xp a nd ing c ontinuously sinc e th e earl y 1 970s, is re sp onsib le for the ma jority o f A m a z o n deforestation. Around 40 percent o f B r a z i l â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s c o w s a re c u r re n t l y l o c a t e d i n s i d e the Amazon, and this is where most of growth of cattle ranching occurs. From 2002 to 2006, 1 4 5 , 0 0 0 0 0 o f t h e t o t a l 2 0 5 , 0 0 0 0 0 he a d of cattle added to Brazil herd were located in the Amazon. In U.S. nearly ten percent of the l a n d a re a i s u s e d t o c re a t e c ro p l a n d t o g ro w grain to feed farmed animals, and more than two hundred sixty million acres of U.S. forest have b e e n c l e a re d . A n o t h e r 3 2 p e rc e n t i s u s e d for grazing cattle, making livestock production t h e l a r g e s t s i n g l e u s e o f l a n d i n t h e c o u n t r y.

To d a y, m e a t p ro d u c t i o n i s putting our planet in peril and hastening global climate change. The worldâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;wide cattle industry is linked to d e s t r u c t i v e d e f o re s t a t i o n a n d o u r c l i m a t e d e s t i n y. Wo r r y i n g l y, d e f o restation is currently the s eco n d l a r g e st d r i v e r o f carbo n di o x i de e m i s s i o n s a f t e r t h e b u r n i n g o f f o s s i l f u e l s . To p u t it in c o n c re t e t e r m s , tro pi cal def o res tati o n a c c o u n t s f o r a whopping twenty percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The Amazon rainforest is of particular concer n and accounts for nearly half of the carbon dioxide emissions re s u l t i n g f ro m t ro p i c a l d e f o re s t a t i o n . L i v e s t o c k n o w u s e t h i r t y p e rc e n t o f t h e e a r t h â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s e n t i re l a n d s u r f a c e , m o s t l y p e r m a n e n t p as tu re b u t a l so i n c l u d i n g 3 3 percen t o f t h e g l o b a l a r a b l e l a n d u s e d t o p ro d u c i n g f e e d f o r livestock (e.g. Corn and soybean). In Latin A m e r i c a w h e re , f o r e x a m p l e , s o m e 7 5 t o 8 0 p ercent o f f o r m e r f o re st s i n th e Am azo n h ave

AVER AGE ANNUA L GLOB AL LOSS OF FOREST SINCE 1990 According to the most recent survey published by the Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the average annual rate of global deforestation has slowed since 2000. But every year, the world still loses around 7 million 300 thousand of forest, an area roughly the size of Panama. Here is a continental breakdown of deforestation rates that compares the 1990—2000 with the 2000—2005 period.

03 | | T HE IMPACT | 3.1 | ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF BEEF PRODUCTION

— — — —

AVERAGE ANNUAL DEFORESTATION RATES, 1990—2000 AVERAGE ANNUAL DEFORESTATION RATES, 2000—2005

ANNUAL AVERAGE FOREST LOSS (MILLIONS OF HECTARES) 1 HECTARES=10,000 SQUARE METERS 10

2011

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —— — 4.37

4.04

4.25

3.80

SOUTH AMERICA

— — — — — — — — — — — —— — 1.0

0.79

ASIA

PA GE

05 8

AFRICA

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —— —

Sources: UN FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005

— — — — — —— 0.44

0.35

OCEANIA

— — — — —— 0.328

0.33

NORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA

059 | PA G E 2011 |

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —— 8.86

7.37

+0.87

+0.66

EUROPE

WORLD

SOURCE | United Nations

— — — — — — — — — — — —

T h e co u n trie s with the highe st ne t losse s of fore st d uring 2000—2005 were Brazil (3,100,000 hectares) and Indonesia (1,800,000 hectares), while China, Spain and V ietnam recorded significant gains in forested areas during the same p e r i o d . E u ro p e w a s t h e o n l y c o n t i n e n t t o s e e a n o v e r a l l i n c re a s e i n f o re s t e d l a n d d u r i n g 1 9 9 0 — 2 0 0 5 . T h e FA O claims that due to significant afforestation projects in China vv th e l as t se ve ra l ye a rs, the c ountry ha s se e n a ne t ga in o f o ver 4 million he c ta re s of fore st sinc e 2000.

C H 3 . 1 ENVIR ONMENTAL ISSUESâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; SOIL D EGRATI O N Human activity is the main cause of soil degradation. A g r i c u l t u re p l a y s a l a r g e p a r t i n s o i l d e g r a d a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y c l e a r i n g , i r r i g a t i o n , t h e s p re a d i n g o f c h e m i c a l fertilizers and pesticides, overgrazing and even the passage of heavy farming equipment. D E F O R E S TAT I O N

03 | | T HE IMPACT | 3.1 | ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF BEEF PRODUCTION

T h e c l e a r i n g a n d d e f o re s t a t i o n o f l a r g e p l o t s o f l a n d t o i n c re a s e t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l s u r f a c e a re a c h a n g e h u m u s c o m p o s i t i on and soil formation. This is because of varied p r i m i t i v e v e g e t a t i o n b e i n g re p l a c e d b y s e c o n d a r y v e g e t a t i o n ( m o n o c u l t u re b e i n g t h e e x t re m e ) . AGR I CULT URE PRA CTICES

T i l l a g e d e stroys superior layers of soil as well as the layer o f h u m u s and can even cause a plough sole ( lower layer of compact land) to form because of ploughs regularly passing through soil at the same depth. Farming equipment also c o n t r i b u t e s to soil compaction especially when it weighs m o re t h a n 5 to n s . CHEMI CAL FERTILIZERS

I r r i g a t i o n and soil drainage can cause soil acidification a n d s a l i n a tion while the use of chemical fertil izers and p e s t i c i d e s contributes to reducing soil capillarity (runoff) a s w e l l a s its consistency. Irrigation in the Aral basin c a u s e d t h e salination and flooding of soils (this can be attributed to canals not being covered and bad drainage). I t a l so f a m o u s l y cau s ed th e A ral Sea to dry o ut. OVER GR AZING

By threatening the productive capacity and/ or reproduction o f v e g e t a t ion, overgrazing strips soils thus making them m o re v u l n erabl e to h ydrau l i c ero s i o n (th i s i s the c a se for 5 6 p e rc e n t of soil degradation) and wind erosion (28 p e rc e n t o f cas es ).

PA GE

06 0

2011

P OL L UTAN TS

I n u r b a n a reas, pollutants such as heavy metals which are d u m p e d c an affect overgrazing strips soils thus making t h e m m o re vulnerable to hydraulic erosion (this is the case f o r 5 6 p e rcent of soil degradation) and wind erosion (28 p e rc e n t o f cas es ).

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Cornell University ecologist advises animal scientists Iowa is one of the major corn growing states and 40 percent of Iowaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s corn goes into livestock feed

2011

PA G E

061

03 | | T HE IMPACT | 3.1 | ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF BEEF PRODUCTION

GL O BAL SOIL DEGRADATION

1% INDUSTRIALIZATION

28%

30%

AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES

2011

DEFORESTATION

7% OVER—EXPLOITATION FOR FUEL WOOD

35% OVERGRAZING

PA GE

06 2

WORLD

Categories not shown in a region represent less than 1%

063 | PA G E 2011 |

d i re c t l y o r i n d i re c t l y re s p o n s i b l e f o r a significant proportion of the soil erosion in the United States. A careful assessment of e ro s i o n o n c ro p a n d p a s t u re l a n d s s u g g e s t s th at l i ves toc k a re the ma jor c ontrib utor to soil erosion on agricultural lands, accounting for 55 percent of the total soil mass eroded e v e r y year. Of thi s eroded mass, around 40 percent w i l l e n d u p i n w a t e r re s o u rc e . T h e re s t w i l l b e depo s i ted on othe r la nd site s. Ne ve rthe le ss c o n s i d e r i n g t h e m a j o r i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e ro l e o f a g r i c u l t u re l a n d i n w a t e r c o n t a m i n a t i o n b y sediments in the United States, we can reas o n abl y a ssume tha t live stoc k p rod uc tion s y s t e m s a re t h e m a j o r s o u rc e o f s e d i m e n t c o n t a m i n a t i o n o f f re s h w a t e r re s o u rc e s .

S o i l e ro s i o n i s re g a rd e d a s o n e o f t h e m o s t important environmental problems in the United States. In the last 200 years, the United States h a s p ro b a b l y l o s t a t l e a s t 1 / 3 o f i t s t o p s o i l . A l t h o u g h e ro s i o n r a t es declined between 1 9 9 1 a n d 2 0 0 0 , a v e r a g e e ro s i o n r a t e s i n 2 0 0 1 , a t 1 2 t o n s p e r h e c t a re p e r y e a r, w e re still above the established sustainable soil l o s s r a t e o f 1 1 t o n s p e r h e c t a re p e r y e a r. T h e r a t e a n d s e v e r i t y o f e ro s i o n i s s i t e s p e c i f i c and depends largely on local conditions and s o i l t y p e s . H o w e v e r, t h e l i n k w i t h l i v e s t o c k p ro d u c t i o n i s c o m p e l l i n g . A b o u t 7 p e rc e n t of the agricultural land in the United States i s d e v o t e d t o t h e p ro d u c t i o n o f a n i m a l f e e d . L i v e s t o c k p ro d u c t i o n c a n b e s a i d t o b e

GL O BAL SOIL DEGRADATION AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES OVERGRAZING OVER—EXPLOITATION FOR FUEL WOOD DEFORESTATION INDUSTRIALIZATION

66%

03 | | T HE IMPACT | 3.1 | ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF BEEF PRODUCTION

Categories not shown in a region represent less than 1%

30%

PA GE

06 4

2011

NORTH AMERICA

2011

45%

29%

AFRICA

26%

15% 5%

CENTRAL AMERICA SOUTH AMERICA

27%

40%

38%

23% 6%

14% 26%

EUROPE ASIA

12% 8%

24%

13%

49%

80%

OCEANIA

PA G E

41%

22%

18%

28%

065

C H 3 . 1 ENVIR ONMENTAL ISSUES— WAT ER POLL U TI O N U NI TE D S TAT E S H A S E XC E SS LE V E LS O F N I T RO GEN A N D P H O S P H O RO U S, B O T H O F W H I C H A R E L A R G E LY CAUSED BY F E RTI L I Z E R R U N O F F.

PA GE

06 6

2011

03 | | T HE IMPACT | 3.1 | ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF BEEF PRODUCTION

W h e n m a n u re i s s p re a d o n f i e l d s a s a f e r t i l i z e r, i t c a n a l s o i n t ro d u c e s o m e o f t h e m o re t o x i c s u b s t a n c e s p re s e n t i n livestock excretions, such as pharmaceuticals o r b a c t e r i a . Wa t e r p o l l u t i o n f ro m m a n u re , a s w e l l a s s y n t h e t i c f e r t i l i z e r s , c a n l e a d t o s e r i o u s e n v i ro n m e n t a l d a m a g e a n d h a r m h u m a n h e a l t h . H e re a re t h e w a t e r pollution facts in the United States. 4 0 p e rcent of America's rivers are too polluted for fishing, swimming, or aquatic life. E v e n worse are America's lakes—46 percent are too polluted for fishing, swimming, or aquatic life. 2 / 3 o f us estuaries and bays are either moderately o r s e v e re l y d e g r a d e d f ro m e u t ro p h i c a t i o n ( n i t ro g e n a n d phosphorus pollution) T h e Mississippi river—which drains nearly 40 percent of the continental united states, including its central f a r m l a n d s —carries an estimated 15,00000 metric tons of n i t ro g e n p o l l u t i o n i n t o t h e g u l f o f M e x i c o e a c h y e a r. T h e re s u l t i n g h y p o x i a c o a s t a l d e a d z o n e i n t h e g u l f e a c h summer is about the size of Massachusetts. O v e r 1 t r i l l i o n g a l l o n s o f u n t re a t e d s e w a g e , s t o r m w a t e r, a n d industrial waste are discharged into us waters annually. T he U.S. EPA has war ned that sewa ge levels in rivers could be back to the super—polluted levels of the 1970s by the year 2016. I n a n y g i v e n y e a r, a b o u t 2 0 o f b e a c h e s i n t h e U . S . a re u n d e r a d v i s o r i e s o r a re c l o s e d a t l e a s t o n e t i m e because of water pollution.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Jacques Cousteau French naval officer, explorer, ecologist, filmmaker, innovator, scientist, photographer, author and researcher who studied the sea and all forms of life in water

TYPES AND EFFECTS OF POLLUTANTS

PA GE

06 8

2011

03 | | T HE IMPACT | 3.1 | ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF BEEF PRODUCTION

F a c t o r y — f arm water pollution can have variety of negative e ff e c t s . N ot only do substantial environmental problems re s u l t , b u t many of the pollutants produced by farms ( M i n e r a l s , chemicals and pathogens, to name a few) can m a k e w a t e r u n s af e f o r h u m an co n s u m pti o n .

L i v e s t o c k m a n u re i s h i g h i n a m m o n i a concentrations, and is solved ammonia in water i s n o t o n l y h i g h l y t o x i c t o fish, but can also b e c o n v e r t e d t o d a n g e ro us nitrates. Elevated n i t r a t e l e v e l s i n d r i n k i n g w a t e r a re h i g h l y p o i s o n o u s t o h u m a n s , c ausing potentially fatal o x y g e n l e v e l s i n b a b i e s ( known as “blue baby s y n d ro m e ” ) , s p o n t a n e o u s a b o r t i o n s , a n d p o s s i b l y c a n c e r. I n a s a mple of wells surveyed b y t h e U S G e o l o g i c a l S u r v e y f ro m 1 9 9 3 t o 2 0 0 0 , 2 p e rc e n t o f p u b l i c s u p p l y a n d 9 p e rc e n t o f t h e d o m e s t i c w e l l s m o re c o m m o n i n r u r a l a re a s w e re f o u n d t o h a v e n i t r a t e concentrations higher than the EPA’s maximum a l l o w a b l e l e v e l . T h e E PA e s t i m a t e s t h a t a b o u t 13 , 0 0 0 0 0 households in counties with i n d u s t r i a l l i v e s t o c k f a c i l i t ies get their water from wells with dangerously high nitrate levels. A N T IBIOT I C S AN D HOR M O NES

A n t i b i o ti c s a n d a r t i f i c i a l growth hormones are c o m m o n l y u s e d o n i n d u s trial farms, either injected d i re c t l y i n t o t h e li ves to ck o r added to t h e i r f e e d . L a r g e a m o u n t s of both substances e n d u p b e i n g e x c re t e d b y animals and can t h u s p o l l u t e w a t e r a l o n g with everything else in livestock waste. Some hormones can remain f u n c t i o n a l i n m a n u re u p t o 2 7 0 d a y s a f t e r e x c re t i o n , a n d t h e re h a v e b e e n m a n y d o c u m e n t e d c a s e s o f h o rmones discovered m i l e s d o w n s t re a m o f f a r m s . A l t h o u g h i t i s unclear whether these hormone concentrations can be high enough to affect humans, they have b e e n s h o w n t o c o m p ro m ise the reproductive p ro c e s s e s o f f i s h . A n estimated 75 percent of all an t i b i o t i c s a d m i n i s tered to l i ves to ck are e x c re t e d , a n d f o r c e r t a i n common antibiotics t h a t f i g u re c a n b e a s h i g h as 90 percent. The o v e r u s e o f a n t i b i o t i c s f o r livestock contributes to the development of antimicrobial–resistant bacteria, and some studies suggest that growth o f t h e s e re s i s t a n t b a c t e r i a m a y b e p ro m o t e d in waterways with high levels of antibiotics. N u m e ro u s s t u d i e s h a v e d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t waterways are a prominent means of transmitting t h e s e d a n g e ro u s t y p e s o f bacteria to humans.

S o m e h eavy me ta ls, suc h a s c op p e r a nd zinc , a re e s s e n t i a l n u t r i e n t s f o r a n i m a l g ro w t h — e s p e c i a l l y f o r c a t t l e , s w i n e , a n d p o u l t r y. H o w e v e r, s u c h e l e m e n t s a re o f t e n p re s e n t i n animal feed in concentrations far higher than necessary for animal health, along with other heavy metals such as chromium, lead, arsenic and cadmium. Farm animals excrete excess h e a v y m e t a l s i n t h e i r m a n u re — w h i c h i n t u r n g e t s s p re a d a s f e r t i l i z e r, l e a d i n g t o s o i l a n d water pollution. The health hazards resulting from exposure to heavy metals in water include kidney problems from cadmium; nervous system disorders, kidney problems and headaches from lead; and both cardiovascular and nervous s ys tem prob le ms from a rse nic , whic h is a lso known to c ause cancer. Many salts are also present in large quantities in manure, including sodium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, chloride, sulfate, bicarbonate, carbonate, and nitrate. When introduced to the environment, these salts increase the s a l i n i t y o f w a t e r w a y s , leading to changes in aquatic ecosystems and making water brackish, and unfit for drinking. PATHOGENS AND OTHER MICROORGANISMS

M a n u re c o n t a i n s a h i g h l e v e l o f p a t h o g e n s (di s eas e–causing mic roorga nisms). Whe n the was te i s app lie d to fie ld s, those p a thoge ns c a n b e t r a n s f e r re d t o l o c a l w a t e r s u p p l i e s during a run off from either irrigation or rainfall. T h e i m p a c t o f p a t h o g e n s f ro m m a n u re i s severe: according to the Centers for Disease Control, in every waterbor ne disease outbreak in the United States from 1986 to 1998 where th e path o g e n c ould b e id e ntifie d , it most like ly originated in livestock. Some other waterbor ne microorganisms do not originate on farms, but develop as a result of eutrophication caused by high nutrient levels. Pfiesteria piscicida, f o r e x a m p l e , t h r i v e s i n m a n y a re a s w h e re algal blooms grow, and causes lesions in fish and l a r g e — s c a l e f i s h k i l l s . I t c a n a l s o c a u s e a range of symptoms in humans, including res pi rato ry a nd e ye irrita tion, ga strointe stina l p ro b l e m s , f a t i g u e , a s w e l l a s s k i n p ro b l e m s and cognitive symptoms such as memory loss and confusion.

PA G E

069 AMMONIA AND NITRATES

HEAVY META L S AND SALT S

2011

Nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorous, are the minerals in fertilizer that promote plant g ro w t h . B u t d u e t o t h e o v e r f e r t i l i z a t i o n o f cro pl an d, f a r more nitroge n a nd p hosp horous are applied to fields than are removed by crops. Excess nutrients in water cause harmful plant growth—commonly referred to as “algal bloom,” which can cause fish kills.

NUTRIENTS

In addition to the biodegradable organic matter n a t u r a l l y p re s e n t i n m a n u re , a n i m a l b e d d i n g , w a s t e d f e e d , s o i l , d u s t , h a i r a n d f e a t h e r s a re o f t e n m i x e d w i t h m a n u re i n s t o r a g e a n d c a n e n d u p i n w a t e r w a y s . T h e decomposition of o r g a n i c m a t t e r c a n c a u s e i n c re a s e d l e v e l s o f b a c t e r i a , w h i c h i n t u r n re d u c e s o x y g e n l e v e l s in water and kills fish. This decomposition c a n a l s o n e g a t i v e l y a ff e c t t h e c o l o r, t a s t e , an d s m e l l o f w a t e r.

SOURCE | United States Department of Agriculture | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

O R GA N IC M AT T ER AN D OT HER SOLIDS

C H 3 . 1 ENVIR ONMENTAL ISSUES— WAT ER WASTE

PA GE

07 0

2011

03 | | T HE IMPACT | 3.1 | ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF BEEF PRODUCTION

O n l y 2 . 5 p e rc e n t o f t h e w o r l d w a t e r i s f re s h w a t e r. A b o u t 7 0 p e rc e n t o f t h e w o r l d f re s h water is used for food production and irrigation. Access to fresh water is inequitably distributed t o t h e w o r ld population; The UN suggests that e a c h p e r s o n n e e d s 2 0 – 5 0 l i t re s o f s a f e f re s h w a t e r a d a y t o e n s u re t h e i r v b a s i c n e e d s f o r d r i n k i n g , cooking and cleaning. More than 1 in 6 p e o p l e wo rl dwi de—8 9 4 m i l l i o n peo pl e do n 't h a v e a c c e ss to this amount of safe freshwater. To d a y 2 . 5 b i l l i o n p e o p l e , i n c l u d i n g a l m o s t 1 b i l l i o n c h i l d re n , l i v e w i t h o u t e v e n b a s i c s a n i t a t i o n . Every 20 seconds, a child dies as a re s u l t o f poor sanitation. That's 1.5 hundred preventable deaths each year. In developing n a t i o n s , 9 0 p e rc e n t o f h u m a n i n f e c t i o u s d i s e a s e s such as malaria and tuberculosis are w a t e r b o r n e . D e g r a d a t i o n o f f re s h w a t e r re s o u rc e s , as well as expanded deforestation and other land changes, by the livestock industry—beef in particular contribute to the p a n d e m i c n a t u re o f m a n y o f t h e s e d i s e a s e s .

I n t h e U . S . , l i v e s t o c k i s re s p o n s i b l e f o r 5 5 percent of erosion and sediment, and 33 percent of the nitrogen and p h o s p h o r u s l o a d i n o u r waterways. This contamination has caused approximately 40 percent of U.S. fresh water to be considered unsafe for recreational use or consumption. F u r t h e r m o re , t h e p ro d u c t i o n of grain fed beef requires a significant amount o f w a t e r a p p ro x i m a t e l y 6 8 0 0 l i t re s o f w a t e r a re u s e d t o c re a t e o n e p o u n d o f b e e f ( t r y m u l t i p l y i n g t h a t o u t b y m o re t h a n 1 0 4 m i l l i o n cows just in t h e U . S . ) T h e b e e f i n d u s t r y i s expected to double its output by 2050, which will re q uire a t le a st 50 p e rc e nt more wa te r use. Given that the world water supply per p e rson will c ontinue to d iminish a t a ra p id pace, and that 800 million people will be living i n c o u n t r i e s o r re g i o n s w i t h a b s o l u t e w a t e r scarcity, and 2/3 of the world population could b e u n d e r s t re s s c o n d i t i o n s 2 0 2 5 , l i m i t i n g b e e f consumption in favor of less environmentally intensive foods would seem imperative.

071 | PA G E

8% DOMESTIC USE

70%

2011

FOOD PRODUCTION AND IRRIGATION

22% INDUSTRY

BREAKDOWN OF FRESH WATER USE

2.5%

97.5% SALT WATER

SOURCE | World Water Assessment Programme | United Nations Environment Programme | UN Water

FRESH WATER

VI RT UAL WATER INSIDE PRODUCTS Virtual water is refers to the water used in the production of a good or service. Here is the diagram to show how many litres of water it takes to produce a half of pound of these differing food types.

03 | | T HE IMPACT | 3.1 | ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF BEEF PRODUCTION

= 100 LITRES OF WATER

LITRES OF WATER

2011

BEEF

LITRES OF WATER CHEESE

LITRES OF WATER

PORK

PA GE

07 2

LITRES OF WATER

CHICKEN

LITRES OF WATER

CORN

APPLE

LITRES OF WATER

SOURCE | Water footprint | UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education

LITRES OF WATER

BREAD

LITRES OF WATER

WHEAT

2011

PA G E

073

PA GE

07 4

| 2011

03 | | T HE IMPACT | 3.1 | ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF BEEF PRODUCTION

C H 3 . 1 ENVIR ONMENTAL ISSUES— F OOD WASTE

075 | PA G E 2011 | SOURCE | Animal Feed Manufacturer's Association | Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;David Pimentel, professor of ecology in Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, reported at the July 24â&#x20AC;&#x201C;26 meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science in Montreal.

PA GE

07 6

2011

03 | | T HE IMPACT | 3.1 | ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF BEEF PRODUCTION

AC C O R D I N G TO T H E A N I M A L F E E D M A N U FAC TURER'S ASSOCIATION, ONE THIRD OF THE WORLD’S GRAIN ARE FED D I R E C T LY TO A N I M A L S. I N D E V E L O P E D C O U N TRIES, THE P E R C E N TAG E O F G R A I N S F E D D I R E C T LY TO L IVESTOCK R I S E S TO S I X T Y P E R C E N T, W I T H E I G H T Y P E R C ENT OF THE G RAI NS I N T H E U N I T E D STAT E S F E D TO LI V E STOCK.

S i n c e t h e u n i t e d s t a t e s i s t h e l e a d i n g p ro d u c e r o f b e e f c a t t l e i n t he world, it is also the top animal feed p ro d u c e r i n t h e w o r l d , w i t h m o re t h a n d o u b l e t h e acre age in animal feed production than its closest rival China. The majority of c ro p l a n d i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i s n o t g ro w i n g f o o d f o rd i re c t human consumption, but is used to grow forage crops for domestic livestock. In fact, the 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume 5 times as much grain as i s c o n s u m e d d i re c t l y b y t h e e n t i re A m e r i c a n p o p u l a t i o n . A m a j o r p ro b l e m w i t h t o d a y ’s f a c t o r y f a r m s y s t e m i s that it is heavily reliant on cheap grain. Under current US a g r i c u l t u re policy, the gover nment provides large subsidies t o f a r m e r s t h a t p ro d u c e g r a i n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y c o r n a n d s o y b e a n s . Livestock producers like to use cor n and soy a s a b a se f o r th ei r an i m al f eed, becau s e t h e s e p ro t e i n – r i c h g r a i n s f a t t e n u p t h e i r a n i m a l s , a n d b e c a u s e t h e y a re i n c re d i b l y c h e a p a s a re s u l t o f g o v e r n m e n t s u b s i d i e s . Livestock consumes 40 percent o f t h e s o y a n d 6 0 p e rc e n t o f t h e c o r n p ro d u c e d i n the US. It’s been estimated t h a t f a c t o r y f a r m s g e t a d i s c o u n t o f 7 t o 1 0 p e rc e n t o n their operating costs because of the subsidies that the g o v e r n m e nt provides for cor n and soy. Although these cheap feed grains mean t h a t m e a t a n d d a i r y p r i c e s a re l o w e r f o r c o n s u m e r s , they also result in lowe r nutritional c o n t e n t . I n general, g r a i n f e d m e a t , e g g s a n d d a i r y a re lower in omega–3 fatty acids (the “good” fat), and C o n j u g a t e d linoleic a c i d , o r C L A ( C L A’s h e l p t o f i g h t a g a i n s t c a ncer and cardiovascular disease), with higher le ve ls o f fat than products from animals raised on grass. A t t h e s am e t i m e , m a l n o u r i s h m e n t a n d s t a r v a t i o n i s not uncommon in Africa and Asia, particularly in African Sahara. The United Nations has estimated that 1/8 of people are actually starving. Hunger and malnourishment i s n o t o n l y c a u s e d b y t h e s h a r p i n c re a s e i n h u m a n p o p u l a t i o n bu t i s th e res u l t o f po o r di s tri bu ti on of food .

TO PRODUCE 1 POUND OF STEAK REQUIRES 6 POUNDS OF GRAIN 6 POUNDS OF GRAIN CONTAINS THE CALORIES NEEDED BY 5 ADULTS PER DAY

SOURCE | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations | US Department of Agriculture | Dr.Abdul Raziq | Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

2011

PA G E

= 1 POUND OF GRAIN

077

C H 3 . 1 ENVIR ONMENTAL ISSUESâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; ENER GY WA S TE

PA GE

07 8

2011

03 | | T HE IMPACT | 3.1 | ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF BEEF PRODUCTION

Factory farming systems has required external i n p u t s i n o rder to ach i eve th e h i g h y i e l d s e x p e c t e d f ro m t h e i n v e s t m e n t o n facilities, e q u i p m e n t and breeding stock. In contrast to i n t e g r a t e d mixed farming where m o s t o f t h e re s o u rc e s including energy used to come from t h e f a r m i t self, intensive p ro d u c t i o n re q u i re s a v a r i e t y o f outside inputs, which in one way o r a n o the r h ave required fossil fuels. Fossil energy is used for the production of feeds (land preparation, fertilizers, pesticides, harvesting, d r y i n g ) , a bo u t f o rty percen t o f ag ri cu l tu re p ro d u c t i o n en erg y g o es i n to m aki n g ch em i cal fertilizers a n d p e s t i c i d e s , t h e i r b u l k t r a n s p o r t ( r a i l a n d / o r s e a f re i g h t ) , s t o r a g e ( v e n t i l a t i o n ) , a n d p ro c e s s i n g (m i l l i n g , m i x i n g , ex tru s i o n , p e l l e t i n g ) an d th ei r di s tri bu ti o n to i n di vi du al

farms. Once on the farm, and depending on location, season of the year and building facilities, more fossil energy is needed for the movement of feeds from the stora ge to the animal pens; for control of the t h e r m a l environment (cooling, heating or ventilation); and for animal waste collection and treatment (solid separation, aerobic fermentation, d r y i n g , l a n d applications). Transport of products (meat animals to abattoirs, milk to processing plants, e g g s t o s t o r a g e ) , p ro c e s s i n g (slaughtering, pasteurization, manufacture of dairy products), storage and refrigerated transport also require fossil fuels. Finally, t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n t o t h e consumer and the final cooking process may a l s o re q u i re e x p e n d i t u re s t o f o s s i l f u e l s .

079 | |

2011

PA G E

E N E R G Y F L OW I N T H E US FOOD SYSTEM

COMMERCIAL FOOD SERVICE

6.6% PACKAGING MATERIAL

3.7% FOOD RETAIL

21.4% AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

13.6% TRANSPORTATION

31.7% 16.4% PROCESSING INDUSTRY

HOUSEHOLD STORAGE & PREPARATION

SOURCE | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations | Center for Sustainable Systems/ University of Michigan

6.6%

ENER GY U SED TO PRODUCE FA CTORY–FARM FO OD

PA GE

08 0

2011

03 | | T HE IMPACT | 3.1 | ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF BEEF PRODUCTION

A n i m a l p ro t e i n p ro d u c t i o n re q u i re s m o re t h a n 8 t i m e s a s m u c h f o s s i l — f u e l e n e r g y t h a n p ro d u c t i o n o f p l a n t p ro t e i n w h i l e y i e l d i n g a n i m a l p ro t e i n t h a t i s o n l y 1 . 4 t i m e s m o re n u t r i t i o u s f o r h u m an s th an th e co m parabl e amount of p la nt p ro t e i n , a c c o rd i n g t o t h e C o r n e l l e c o l o g i s t ' s a n a l y s i s . O n a v e r a g e , a n i m a l p ro t e i n production in the U.S. requires 28 k i l o c a l o r i e s (k cal ) f o r e v e r y k c a l o f p ro t e i n p ro d u c e d f o r h u m a n c o nsumption. Beef and lamb are the most costly, in t e r m s o f f ossil fuel energy input to protein output at 5 4 : 1 and 50:1, respectively. Turkey and chicken meat production a re t h e m o s t e ff i c i e n t ( 1 3 : 1 a n d 4 : 1 , respectively). Grain p ro d u c t i o n , o n a v e r a g e , re q u i re s 3 . 3 k c a l o f f o s s i l f u e l f o r e v e r y k c a l o f p ro t e i n p ro d u c e d . T h e U . S . n o w i m p o r t s a b o u t 5 4 p e rc e n t o f i t s o i l ; b y t h e y e a r 2 0 1 5 , t h a t i m p o r t f i g u re i s e x p e c t e d t o r i s e t o 1 0 0 p e rc e n t .

081 = A KILOCALORIE OF FOSSIL FUEL FOR EVERY KILOCALORIE OF PROTvvvEIN PRODUCE

PA G E

R AT IO OF F O SSI L F U EL EN ERGY INPUT TO PROTEIN OUTPUT

2011

A kilocalorie is a unit of energy—it's 1 food calorie, or 1,000 energy calories

BEEF

EGG

MILK

CHICKEN

GRAIN

SOURCE | Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

PIG

PA GE

08 2

| 2011

03 | | T HE IMPACT | 3.2 | HEALTH ISSUES OF BEEF PRODUCTION

C H 3 . 2 HEALT H ISSUES— IMPACT ON LIVEST OCK H E A LTH

SOURCE | MichaeL Pollan | The National Cattlemen's Beef Association

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Michael Pollan

2011

PA G E

083

PA GE

08 4

2011

03 | | T HE IMPACT | 3.2 | HEALTH ISSUES OF BEEF PRODUCTION

T H E O B J E C T I V E O F FA R M FAC TO R I E S I S TO M AXIMIZE O U T P U T A N D P RO F I T. T H E Y AC H I E V E T H I S B Y MECHANIC B R E E D I N G O F T H E I R A N I M A L A S W E L L A S FAT TENING A N D F E E D I N G T H E M C H E M I CA L S. A D D I T I O NA L LY, T H E ANI M AL S A R E C O N F I N E D W I T H LI T T LE B E D D I NG A N D P O O R R E C Y C L I N G O F CA R CA S S E S.

A n i m a l s a re not considered as sentient beings but rather as means to an end, as objects of consumption. The c o n d i t i o n s in farm factories are more than unpleasant and unsanitary: They are disgusting. Farm factories are centers f o r b re e d i n g d i s e a s e , b a c t e r i a , p o l l u t i o n a n d d e a t h . C o n f i n e m ent and o v e rc ro w d i n g o f a n i m a l s ' e n v i ro n m e n t s p re s e n t s t h e r i s k o f c o n t a m i n a t i o n o f t h e m e a t f ro m v i r u s e s a n d b a c t e r i a . F e e d l o t a n i m a l s re s i d e i n c ro w d e d conditions and often spend their time standing in their o w n w a s t e . A d a i r y f a r m w i t h 2 5 0 0 c o w s m a y p ro d u c e a s much waste as a city of 411000 people, and unlike a city i n w h i c h h u m a n w a s t e e n d s u p a t a s e w a g e t re a t m e n t p l a n t , l i v e s t o c k w a s t e i s n o t t re a t e d . A s a re s u l t , f e e d l o t a n i m a l s h a v e t h e p o t e n t i a l o f e x p o s u re t o v a r i o u s v i r u s t e s and bacteria via the manure and urine in their environment. F u r t h e r m o re , t h e a n i m a l s o f t e n h a v e re s i d u a l m a n u re o n t h e i r b odies when they go to slaughter. On a factory b e e f o r d a i r y f a r m , t h e m a i n s t a p l e s o f a c o w ’s d i e t a re c o r n a n d s o y, w h i c h c o w s d o n ’t d i g e s t w e l l . C o w s a re r u m i n a n t s , a n d r u m i n a n t s a re d e s i g n e d b y n a t u re t o digest grass and only grass. They digest it first by eating i t r a w a n d t h e n b y re g u r g i t a t i n g i t a n d e a t i n g i t a g a i n i n a partially–digested form known as cud. As ruminants, cows have 4 chambers in their stomachs, and as a cow d i g e s t s , t h e f o o d m o v e s s l o w l y f ro m o n e c h a m b e r t o t h e n e x t . I n f a c t , b e c a u s e t h e i r d i g e s t i v e s y s t e m s a re n o t d e s i g n e d f o r g r a i n , c a t t l e c a n d e v e l o p s e v e re h e a l t h p ro b l e m s , i n c l u d i n g l i v e r a b s c e s s e s a n d s u d d e n d e a t h s y n d ro m e . F o r f i l l e r, f a c t o r y f a r m s w i l l a l s o a d d a n i m a l b y – p ro d u cts to industrial cattle feed, and the se additions can transmit diseases like mad cow to both animals and humans. The advent of "mad cow" disease (also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE) raised international concern about the safety of feeding re n d e re d c a t t l e t o c a t t l e . S i n c e t h e d i s c o v e r y o f m a d c o w disease in the United States, the federal government has t a k e n s o m e a c t i o n t o re s t r i c t t h e p a r t s t h a t c a n b e f e d b a c k t o c a t t l e . H o w e v e r, m o s t a n i m a l s a re s t i l l a l l o w e d t o e a t m e a t f ro m t h e i r o w n s p e c i e s . E v e n c a t t l e c a n s t i l l b e fed cow blood and some other cow parts.

SOURCE | Union of Concerned Scientists | sustainabletable.org

2011

PA G E

085

PA GE

08 6

| 2011

03 | | T HE IMPACT | 3.2 | HEALTH ISSUES OF BEEF PRODUCTION

C H 3 . 2 HEALT H ISSUES— IMPACT ON HUMAN HE A LTH

SOURCE | Michael Pollan

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Michael Pollan

2011

PA G E

087

POSSIBLE HEALTH PROBLEM WHICH HUMAN CA N G E T

03 | | T HE IMPACT | 3.2 | HEALTH ISSUES OF BEEF PRODUCTION

F R OM EAT ING GRAIN FED B EEF

ANTIBIOTICS RESISTANT E.COLI 0157:H7 HORMONES MAD COW DISEASE

PA GE

08 8

2011

SATURATED FAT

Feedlot beef as we know it today would be i m p o s s i b l e i f i t w e re n ’t f o r t h e ro u t i n e a n d continual feeding of antibiotics to these a n i m a l s . T h i s l e a d s d i re c t l y a n d i n e x o r a b l y t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a ntibiotic–resistant b a c t e r i a . T h e s e a re t h e n e w “ s u p e r b u g s ” t h a t a re i n c re a s i n g l y re n d e r i n g o u r “ m i r a c l e d r u gs ” i n e ff e c t i v e . T h e U n i o n o f Concerned S c i e n t i s t s ( U C S ) re p o r t t h a t a b o u t 7 0 p e rc e n t of all antibiotics made in the United States n ow go t o f a t t e n i n g u p l i ves to ck. In th e m i d– 1 9 8 0 s , 1 6 m i l l i o n p o u n d s of antibiotics were used in livestock production. 25 million pounds a re b e i n g u s e d t o d a y. T h i s e v e r i n c re a s i n g use is contributing to the creation of antibiotic– resistant bacteria. According to the UCS, more t h a n 9 5 p e rc e n t o f a c o m m o n b a c t e r i a c a l l e d S t a p h y l o c o c c u s a u re u s i s n o w re s i s t a n t t o

2011

PA G E

089 A N T I B I OTICS RESISTANT

p e n i c i l l i n , re q u i r i n g t h e u s e o f n e w e r a n d s t ro n g e r d r u g s . O n e o f t h e m a i n u s e s f o r antibiotics in the cattle industry is to combat so–called “feedlot diseases,” diseases that a re c o m m o n w h e n c a t t l e a re s h i p p e d t o d i s t a n t f e e d l o t s , m i n g l e d w i t h a n i m a l s f ro m o t h e r h e rd s , a n d s w i t c h e d f ro m t h e i r n a t u r a l diet of forage to a grain–based feedlot diet. A n i m a l s t h a t re m a i n o n p a s t u re f ro m b i r t h u n t i l m a r k e t a re s o h e a l t h y t h a t t h e y r a re l y re q u i re a n t i b i o t i c t re a t m e n t . E. COL I 015 7 : H 7

As well, it is the commercial meat industry’s practice of keeping cattle in feedlots and f e e d i n g t h e m g r a i n t h a t i s re s p o n s i b l e f o r the heightened prevalence of E. coli 0157:H7 b a c t e r i a . W h e n c a t t l e a re g r a i n f e d , t h e i r intestinal tracts become far more acidic,which favors the growth of pathogenic E. coli bacteria, which in turn kills people who eat under cooked hamburger. E.coli 0157:H7 has only recently ap peared on the scene. First isolated in the 1980s, this pathogen is now found in the intestines of most U.S. feedlot cattle. The practice of feeding corn and other grains t o c a t t l e h a s c re a t e d t h e p e r f e c t c o n d i t i o n s f o r m i c ro b e s t o c o m e i n t o b e i n g t h a t c a n harm and kill us. As Michael Pollan explains: “Most of the microbes that reside in the gut of a cow and find their way into our food get killed off by the acids in our stomachs, since they originally adapted to live in a neutral–pH e n v i ro n m e n t . B u t t h e d i g e s t i v e t r a c t o f t h e modern feedlot cow is closer in acidity to our own, and in this new, man made environment acid–resistant strains of E. coli have developed that can survive our stomach acids—and go on to kill us. By acidifying a cow’s gut with c o r n , w e h a v e b ro k e n d o w n o n e o f o u r f o o d c h a i n ’s b a r r i e r s t o i n f e c t i o n s . ”

SOURCE | Michael Pollan | The Union of Concerned Scientists | 2000 Nebraska Beef Report

Tr a d i t i o n a l l y, a l l b e e f w a s g r a s s f e d b e e f , b u t in the United States today what is commercially available is almost all feedlot beef. The reason? I t ’s f a s t e r, a n d s o m o re profitable. 75 years a g o , s t e e r s w e re 4 o r 5 y ears old at slaughter. To d a y, t h e y a re 1 4 o r 1 6 m o n t h s . Yo u c a n ’t t a k e a b e e f c a l f f ro m a b i r t h w e i g h t o f 8 0 p o u n d s t o 1 2 0 0 p o u n d s i n a l i t t l e m o re t h a n a year on grass. It takes enormous quantities o f c o r n , p ro t e i n s u p p l e m e n t s , a n t i b i o t i c s a n d o t h e r d r u g s , i n c l u d i n g g ro w t h h o r m o n e s . S w i t c h i n g a c o w f ro m g r a s s t o g r a i n i s s o disturbing to the animal’s digestive system that it can k i l l t h e a n i m a l i f n o t do n e g radu al l y an d if the animal is not continually fed antibiotics. T h e s e a n i m a l s a re d e s i g n e d t o f o r a g e , b u t we make them eat grain, primarily corn, in o rd e r t o m a k e t h e m a s f at as possible as fast a s p o s si b l e . A l l t h i s i s n ot only unnatural and i t i s d a n g e ro u s f o r t h e c o w s . I t a l s o h a s p rofou n d c o n s e q u e n c e s fo r u s .

HORMONES

03 | | T HE IMPACT | 3.2 | HEALTH ISSUES OF BEEF PRODUCTION

Scientists believe about 2/3 of American c a t t l e r a i s e d f o r s l a u g h t e r t o d a y a re i n j e c t e d w i t h h o r m ones to make them grow faster and A m e r i c a ’s d a i r y c o w s a re g i v e n a g e n e t i c a l l y – e n g i n e e re d h o r m o n e c a l l e d rBGH (recombinant b o v i n e g ro w t h h o r m o n e ) t o i n c re a s e m i l k production. These measures mean higher profits for the beef and dairy industries, but what does i t m e a n f o r consumers? Although the USDA a n d F D A c laim these hormones are safe, there i s g ro w i n g c o n c e r n t h a t h o r m o n e re s i d u e s i n meat and milk might be harmful to human h e a l t h a n d t h e e n v i ro n m e n t . A c c o rd i n g t o t h e E u ro p ean Union’s Scientific Committee on Ve t e r i n a r y Measures Relating to Public Health, t h e u s e o f 6 n a t u r a l a n d a r t i f i c i a l g ro w t h h o r m o n e s in beef production poses a potential risk to human health. These 6 hormones include 3 w h i c h a re n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g — O e s t r a d i o l , P ro g e s t e ro n e a n d Te s t o s t e ro n e — a n d 3 w h i c h a re s y n t h e t i c — Z e r a n o l , Tre n b o l o n e , a n d M e l e n gestrol. The Committee also q u e s t i o n e d w h e t h e r h o r m o n e re s i d u e s i n t h e m e a t o f " g ro w t h e n h a n c e d " a n i m a l s a n d c a n disrupt human hormone balance, causing d e v e l o p m e n t a l p ro b l e m s , i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h e reproductive system, and even leading to the development of breast, prostate or colon cancer.

PA GE

09 0

2011

MAD COW DISEASE

I n D e c e m b e r, 2 0 0 3 , t i s s u e s f ro m a c o w f ro m a Wa s h i n g t o n S t a t e c o n f i n e m e n t d a i r y t e s t e d p o s i t i v e f or BSE or mad cow disease. The cow contracted BSE by being fed meat and b o n e m e a l made from other cattle that were i n f e c t e d w ith BSE. T h i s was co m m o n practi ce

in the U.S. until 1997. In essence, grass grazing herbivores were being tur ned into cannibals. Tr a g i c a l l y, p e o p l e w h o a t e t h e s e m e a t – e a t i n g cows ran the risk of acquiring a human form of mad cow disease called Creutzfelt–Jakob disease that killed more than a hundred people in Europe. To date, two other US cattle have been diagnosed with BSE. Since the 1997 USDA ban on meat and bone meal in cattle feed, the risk of mad cow disease has gone d o w n s u b s t a n t i a l l y. B u t t h e re i s a l w a y s t h e risk that feed producers will in advertently mix meat and bone meal designated for other a n i m a l s i n t o a p p ro v e d c a t t l e f e e d . S AT U R AT E D FAT

A n i m a l s r a i s e d i n f a c t o r y f a r m s a re g i v e n diets designed to boost their productivity and l o w e r c o s t s . T h e m a i n i n g re d i e n t s a re g e n e t i c a l l y m o d i f i e d g r a i n a n d s o y t h a t a re kept at artificially low prices by government subsidies. Grass fed meat is low in both overall fat and artery–clogging saturated fat, a n d i t p ro v i d e s a c o n s i d e r a b l y h i g h e r a m o u n t of healthy Omega–3 fats than corn fed meat. T h e m e a t f ro m g r a i n f e d f e e d l o t a n i m a l s typically contains only 15 to 55 percent of the Omega–3's of grass fed livestock. And even though grain fed cows develop highly marbled f l e s h t h a t m o s t c o n s u m e r s a re a c c u s t o m e d to, this is unhealthy saturated fat that can't b e trimme d off. And the re 's more . Me a t f ro m p a s t u re d c a t t l e h a s u p t o 4 t i m e s t h e amount of vitamin E than meat from feedlots, and is much higher in Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA), a nutrient associated with lowering cancer risk.

SOURCE | European Union scientific panel | sustainabletable.org | eatwild.org

2011

PA G E

091

CH//4 W HAT CAN WE DO TO HEL P C H 4 . 1 P / / 0 9 4 E ati ng L ess t han half a poun d of bee f per wee k C H 4 . 2 P / / 0 9 8 eat g rass f ed bee f C H 4 . 3 P / / 1 0 0 Try v egetarian diet

PA GE

09 2

2011

04 | WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP

C H 4 . 4 P / / 1 0 2 Spr ea d t he word

SOURCE | www.nobullfromfactory.org

2011

PA G E

093

PA GE

09 4

| 2011

04 | | W HAT CAN WE DO TO HELP | 4.1 | EAT LESS BEEF

C H 4 . 1 WHAT CAN WE D O T O HELP— EAT LESS BE E F

SOURCE | www.nobullfromfactory.org

窶年O BULL

2011

PA G E

095

EAT L ESS THA N HA LF A POUND OF B EEF PER W E E K

04 | | W HAT CAN WE DO TO HELP | 4.1 | EAT LESS BEEF

Asking everybody to completely stop eating beef may not b e p o s s i b l e. However, if you care about our planet, please g i v e a l i t t l e e ff o r t a n d t r y t o e a t l e s s t h a n h a l f a p o u n d of beef per week. Half a pound of beef is about the size o f 4 re g u l a r patti es o r a s teak. F o r i n s tan ce, in Ame ric a , p e o p l e c o nsumes about 1.3 pounds of beef per week, it's about 70 pounds of beef per person per year. It is equivalent t o 1 0 0 0 p o u n d s o f C O ₂ i n o u r a t m o s p h e re . E a t i n g l e s s t h a n h a l f a p o u n d a o f b e e f c a n h e l p t o re d u c e p e o p l e ' s carbon footprint by up to 620 pounds of CO₂ equivalent p e r p e r s o n p e r y e a r. C o n s i d e r i n g , t h e re a re 3 0 0 m i l l i o n p e o p l e i n t h i s c o u n t r y, c h a n g i n g o u r d i e t a n d e a t i n g l e s s beef can definitely help our world.

= 10 PATTIES PEOPLE CONSUME 1.3 POUNDS OF BEEF PER PERSON PER WEEK IN THE U.S.

1000

POUNDS OF CO ₂

2011

280 PATTIES = 70 POUNDS OF BEEF

PA GE

09 6

PER PERSON PER YEAR

097 | PA G E 2011 | IF WE CUT DOWN OUR CONSUMPTION BY HALF A POUND PER WEEK

104 PATTIES = 26 POUNDS OF BEEF =

380

POUNDS OF CO ₂

ALSO, IT WILL REDUCE UP TO

6 2 0 POUNDS OF CO₂2 EQUIVALENT P E R PER S ON PER YEAR = D R IV I N G 8 30 MIL ES L ESS

SOURCE | USDA | Factors Affecting U.S. Beef Consumption

PER PERSON PER YEAR

PA GE

09 8

| 2011

04 | | W HAT CAN WE DO TO HELP | 4.2 | EAT GRASS FED BEEF

C H 4 . 2 WHAT CAN WE D O T O HELP— EAT GRAS S FE D BE E F

099 | PA G E 2011 | SOURCE | greenamerica.org

I f y o u e a t b e e f , a t l e a s t m a k e s u re t h e b e e f y o u â&#x20AC;&#x2122; re e a t i n g c o m e s f ro m c o w s r a i s e d n e a r w h e re y o u l i v e a n d n o t f ro m f a c t o r y f a r m i n g . Yo u c a n l o o k f o r c e r t i f i e d o r g a n i c g r a s s f e d b e e f t o h e l p m i t i g a t e s o m e o f t h e p l a n e t a r y p ro b l e m s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h m e a t . F rom an environmental perspective, grass fed beef is a better option than factory farmed b e e f . G r a s s f e d b e e f c a t tle are fed no grain, and generally c o m e f ro m s m a l l , l o c a l f a r m s , w h e re t h e y g r a z e o u t s i d e i n p a s t u re s . A c c o rd i n g t o L o c a l H a r v e s t , r a i s i n g g r a s s f e d b e e f u s e s l e s s f u e l , f e r t i l i zer, and pesticides and the meat i t s e l f i s l e a n e r a n d h a s m o re h e a l t h y o m e g a â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 3 s t h a n factory farmed beef.

PA GE

1 00

| 2011

04 | | W HAT CAN WE DO TO HELP | 4.3 | TRY VEGETARIAN DIET

C H 4 . 3 WHAT CAN WE D O T O HELP— T RY VEGE TA RI A N D I E T

101 | PA G E 2011 | SOURCE | greenamerica.org

Yo u w i l l h a v e t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f h e a l t h i e r m e a l s , l o w e r i n g your personal global warming footprint, and having your d i e t re f l e c t y o u r s o c i a l , a n i m a l w e l f a re , a n d e n v i ro n m e n t a l v a l u e s . I n 2 0 0 6 , D r. P a m e l a M a r t i n a n d G i d o n E s h e l o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o c o m p a re d t h e g re e n h o u s e g a s e ff e c t s o f a v e g a n d i e t t o f i v e o t h e r d i e t s : T h e s t u d y l o o k e d a t t h e e n t i re l i f e c y c l e o f t h e s e d i e t s , e x a m i n i n g t h e e n e r g y i t t a k e s t o g ro w, h a r v e s t , t r a n s p o r t , a n d p re p a re t h e m . T h e v e g e t a r i a n d i e t t u r n e d o u t t o b e t h e most energyâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;efficient and therefore lowest in greenhouse g a s e s . R e d m e a t â&#x20AC;&#x201D; m o s t l y b e e f , i s t h e l e a s t e ff i c i e n t .

C H 4 . 4 WHAT CAN WE D O T O HELP— SPREAD T H E W O RD

PA GE

1 02

2011

04 | | W HAT CAN WE DO TO HELP | 4.4 | SPREAD THE WORD

T h e re a re s t i l l a l o t o f p e o p l e n o t a w a re o f t h e p ro b l e m s c a u s e d b y t h e b e e f i n d u s t r y. We n e e d y o u t o s p re a d t h e w o rd t o y o u r f a m i l y, f r i e n d s a n d e v e r y o n e y o u k n o w. R a i s i n g a w a re n e s s o f t h e b e e f p o l l u t i o n p ro b l e m i s t h e first step, and we need your help!

SOURCE | www.nobullfromfactory.org

窶年O BULL

2011

PA G E

103

P R O D UCT I ON NOTES COVER

Book cloth Foil stamping B i n d i n g : P e rf ect bi n di n g S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , Ph o to s h o p END SHEET

9 1 l b re d Canson T I T L EPAGE

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p PAGE 6 &7

| P RODUCTION NOTES

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n TABL E O F CONTENTS

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n PAGE 1 0 &11

2011

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p PAGE 1 2 &13

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p PAGE 1 4 &15

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p PAGE 1 6 &17

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p

PA GE

1 04

PAGE 1 8 &19

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p

105 | PA G E

PA G E 2 0&21

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p

PA G E 2 2&23

2011

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p

PA G E 2 4&25

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p PA G E 2 6&27

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p PA G E 2 8&29

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p PA G E 3 0&31

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p PA G E 3 2&33

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p PA G E 3 4&35

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p PA G E 3 8&39

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p

SOURCE | www.nobullfromfactory.org

PA G E 3 6&37

PA GE 40 &4 1

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p PA GE 42 &4 3

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p PA GE 44 &4 5

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p PA GE 46 &4 7

| P RODUCTION NOTES

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p PA GE 48 &4 9

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p

2011

PA GE 50 &5 1

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p

PA GE 52 &5 3

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p PA GE 54 &5 5

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p PA GE 56 &5 7

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p

PA GE

1 06

PA GE 58 &5 9

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p

107 S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p

PA G E

PA GE 6 0&6 1

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p

2011

PA GE 6 2&6 3

PA GE 6 4&6 5

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p PA GE 6 6&6 7

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p PA GE 6 8&6 9

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p PA GE 7 0&7 1

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p PA GE 7 2&7 3

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p PA GE 7 4&7 5

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p PA GE 7 8&7 9

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p

SOURCE | www.nobullfromfactory.org

PA GE 7 6&7 7

PAGE 8 2 &83

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p PAGE 8 4 &85

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p PAGE 8 6 &87

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p PAGE 8 0 &81

| P RODUCTION NOTES

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p PAGE 8 8 &89

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p PAGE 9 0 &91

2011

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p PAGE 9 2 &93

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p PAGE 9 4 &95

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p PAGE 9 6 &97

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p

PA GE

1 08

PAGE 9 8 &99

S m o o t h n a tu ral 8 0 tex t M O H AW K VIA F o u r c o l o r − pri n t pro ces s S o f t w a re : I n des i g n , Il l u s trati o n , ph o to s h o p

109 S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p

PA G E

PA G E 1 00 &10 1

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p

2011

PA G E 1 02 &10 3

PA G E 1 04 &10 5

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p PA G E 1 06 &10 7

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p PA G E 1 08 &10 9

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p PA G E 1 10 &11 1

S mooth n a t u r a l 8 0 t e x t MO H AW K V I A F ou r col o r − p r i n t p ro c e ss S oftw are : I n d e si g n , I l l u s t rati o n , ph o to s h o p E N D S H E ET

SOURCE | www.nobullfromfactory.org

9 1 l b re d C an s on

R ESO U R C ES P HOT O GR APHY

R o b e r t M e h l an Flicker BO O K

T h e O m n i vo re's D i l em m a/ M i ch ael Po l l an I n D e f e n s e o f f o o d/ M i ch ael P o l l an

PA GE

110

2011

RESOURCES

OT H ER R ESOURCES

U . N . re p o r t, L i ves to ck’s L o n g S h ado w, 2 0 0 6 F o o d a n d A g ri cu l tu re Org an i zati o n o f th e U n i t e d Na tions U n i t e d N a ti o n s En vi ro n m en t P ro g ram m e I n t e r n a t i o n al So i l Ref eren ce an d In f o rm ati o n Ce ntre U N E S C O - IHE Institue for Water Education F l o r i d a D e p artm en t o f Ag ri cu l tu re an d Co n s u me r Se rvic e s C e n t e r f o r Su s tai n abl e Sys tem s / U n i vers i ty o f Mic higa n Cor nell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences U n i t e d S t a tes D epartm en t o f Ag ri cu l tu re (U SDA) U . S . E n v i ro n m en tal Pro tecti o n Ag en cy (EPA) A ss o c i a t i o n Of Am eri can F eed Co n tro l Off i ci a ls T h e H u m a ne S o ci ety o f th e U n i ted States Wo r l d Wa t e r As s es s m en t Pro g ram m e T h e N a t i o nal Cattl em en 's Beef As s o ci ati o n E n v i ro n m e ntal Heal th Pers pecti ves A n i m a l F e ed M an u f actu rer's A s s o ci ati o n I n st i t u t e f o r Ag ri cu l tu re an d Trade P o l i cy E n v i ro n m e ntal Heal th Pers pecti ves N a t i o n a l A gri cu l tu ral S tati s ti cs Servi ce U . S . D e p a rtm en t o f En erg y (D OE) Wo r l d R e so u rces In s ti tu e T h e C a n a d i an W h eat Bo ard 2 0 0 0 N e b ras ka Beef Repo rt S C I E N T I F I C AM ERICA N U n i o n o f Co n cer n ed Sci en ti s ts t E u ro p e a n Un i o n s ci en ti f i c pan el E a r t h P o l i cy In s ti tu te E u ro p e a n E n vi ro n m en t A g en cy G R E E N A M ERICA.ORG s u s t a i n a b l etabl e.o rg M a n u f a c t ured l an ds capes F i v e r i v e r s’ f eedyard M i c h a e l P o l l an Wo r l d W i l d l i f e F u n d eatwild.org D r. A b d u l R azi q A l l i a n z K n owl edg e M o n g a b a y.co m G o o d P l a n et.i n f o Wa t e r f o o t pri n t m e a t t r a d e news dai l y C A C T U S F E ED ERS wikipedia U n i t e d N a ti o n s U N Wa t e r

SOURCE | www.nobullfromfactory.org

2011

PA G E

111